Costs of the May 2011
referendum on the UK
Parliamentary voting system
December 2012
Translations and other formats
For information on obtaining this
publication in another language or in
a large-print or Braille version, please
contact the Electoral Commission:
Tel: 020 7271 0500
Email: [email protected]
© The Electoral Commission 2012
Contents
Foreword
4
Summary
6
1
Introduction
12
2
What the referendum cost and how it was paid for
16
3
Administering the funding for the referendum
36
4
Improving the funding model
46
Appendices
Appendix A – Detailed breakdown of expenditure on
the referendum by each Counting Officer and Regional
Counting Officer
51
Appendix B – Further information about breakdown of
costs
71
Appendix C – Charges Order and Accounts
Regulations
79
Appendix D – Overview of expenditure on the 2011
referendum; and assurance statement provided by the
National Audit Office
80
3
Foreword
The 5 May 2011 referendum on the voting system to be used to elect MPs to the
House of Commons was the first UK-wide referendum since 1975. This report
provides information about what the referendum cost and about how the Electoral
Commission managed the process of reimbursing the costs incurred by Counting
Officers.
This is the first time that a full report has been published on the costs of running a
national poll and we are confident that the information we have published in the
report significantly improves the level of transparency and accountability involved in
the use of public funds in the running of major polls.
Our report calls on the UK Government to increase this transparency by publishing
equivalent details on the costs of the last two major elections (the European
Parliament elections in 2009 and the UK Parliamentary General Election in 2010),
and to do the same for all future elections funded on the same basis, beginning with
the recent Police and Crime Commissioner elections. The publication of these
detailed costs will be essential to further work that the Commission intends to
undertake, so that Returning Officers and Counting Officers are better equipped to
secure best value in the procurement of services at future polls.
The report also sets out recommendations designed to improve the way in which
national polls are funded and how the reimbursement of costs is managed. We see
no reason why these recommendations should not be acted upon in good time for
the June 2014 elections to the European Parliament and the autumn 2014
independence referendum in Scotland. For the European Parliament elections, that
means Governments and the Accounting Officer making a concerted effort to have
all the changes in place by November 2013.
It will be especially important for Governments and the Accounting Officer to develop
a more robust approach for estimating the Maximum Recoverable Amounts that
Returning Officers can claim for their costs of running the poll; as this report shows,
the UK Government significantly overestimated the costs of the 2011 referendum.
It will also be important for the Accounting Officer for the European Parliament
elections and the independence referendum in Scotland to decide on an appropriate
and cost-effective process for obtaining assurance that costs reimbursed have been
properly incurred; to ensure a clear separation between the fees paid to Returning
Officers and Counting Officers for their services, and the sums paid to reimburse the
costs they incur in conducting polls; and to ensure that those responsible for day-today operational work on the reimbursement process (whether the Election Claims
Unit or any other team) have in place robust case-management processes that
ensure that claims are not only submitted on time, but are also dealt with quickly and
efficiently.
The UK Government has announced that it is undertaking a wider review of the ‘fees
and charges’ framework for major polls. That review should address all the
4
recommendations in this report, and we look forward to the Government publishing
further information about the scope, terms of reference and timescale for the review.
We hope that the information in this report will be of interest and assistance to all
those involved in the funding of national polls, and that we will see improvements in
the process in good time for the major polls in 2014.
Jenny Watson
Chair of the Electoral Commission and Chief Counting Officer
Peter Wardle
Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission and Accounting Officer
5
Summary
On 5 May 2011, the people of the UK voted in a referendum on the voting system
used to elect MPs to the House of Commons.
The referendum was held on the same day as scheduled elections to the Scottish
Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, and local
government elections across Northern Ireland and in 279 local authorities in England.
The Electoral Commission was responsible for overseeing, and accounting to
Parliament for, the payment of fees to Counting Officers for running the referendum,
and the reimbursement of the costs they incurred in doing so.
This report sets out in one place what the referendum cost, and how we managed
the process of reimbursing the costs incurred by Counting Officers.
This is the first time a full report has been published on the costs of a national poll. It
includes a number of important recommendations designed to improve the process.
Governments who set the framework and funding for national polls, Accounting
Officers responsible for the equivalent process at future polls, and Returning Officers
at elections and Counting Officers at referendums, should act on these
recommendations, so that changes are in place before the next set of polls due to be
funded in this way – the June 2014 elections to the European Parliament and the
independence referendum in Scotland in autumn 2014. In order to meet the
generally accepted principle that changes must be clear at least six months in
advance, this means that in relation to the European Parliament elections, the
changes we recommend must be delivered by November 2013.
Key facts and figures
At the May 2011 referendum:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Nearly 45.7 million people were registered to vote
Nearly 19.3 million electors cast a vote - a turnout of 42.2%
13 million people voted No - 67.9% of all valid votes
6.1 million people voted Yes - 32.1% of all valid votes
440 Counting Officers set up 42,800 polling stations
119,500 staff worked in those polling stations
Over 80,500 staff worked on verifying and counting the ballot papers
Nearly 7.2 million postal votes were issued to electors, of which 5.2 million (72%)
were returned
There were 12 registered campaign groups, and two official lead campaign
groups were designated by the Electoral Commission: Yes to Fairer Votes and
NO to AV
The Electoral Commission distributed 27 million information booklets to
households across the UK, reaching 96.1% of all households.
6
The costs of the referendum met from funds overseen by the UK Parliament were
just over £75 million. Other costs (see Chapter 2 of this report) were, of course,
incurred, most notably the spending by campaigners funded from donations and the
costs to broadcasters of transmitting referendum campaign broadcasts.
£58 million was paid to Counting Officers in fees and reimbursement of costs. £17
million was paid out directly by the Electoral Commission. Table 1 below gives a
more detailed breakdown of these figures.
Table 1: Breakdown of referendum costs
£m
Authorised by
Authorised by
Parliament through the Parliament through
PVSC Act 2011 1
the Electoral
Commission’s
annual Estimates
Costs paid direct by Electoral Commission: £17.139m
Cost of campaign group mailings
8.530
2
Postal vote ‘sweeps’
0.269
Electoral Commission public
7.523
awareness activity
Electoral Commission grants to
0.287
campaign groups
Electoral Commission additional
0.080
staffing
Electoral Commission costs of
0.450
administering payment of fees and
costs to Counting Officers
Costs paid to Counting Officers & Regional Counting Officers: £58.126m
Reimbursement of Counting/
55.662
Regional Counting Officer costs
Counting/Regional Counting Officer
2.464
fees
Sub-totals by method of
66.925
8.340
authorisation
Total costs paid
75.265
Appendix A provides details of the £58 million that was paid out to Counting Officers
and Regional Counting Officers for fees and expenses incurred. Appendix B
provides a breakdown of fees and costs incurred at the referendum across the
different parts of the UK, including costs of polling stations, postal votes, poll cards
1
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011
This refers to searches of mail centres on polling day, to collect any postal ballot packs which might
have been posted by electors on or very close to polling day, in order to deliver them to the
Counting/Returning Officer before the close of poll.
2
7
and the count. It also sets out estimated costs for a future ‘stand-alone’ event.
Appendix C provides descriptions of, and links to, the relevant legislation, namely
The Referendum on the Voting System (Counting Officers’ and Regional Counting
Officers’ Charges) Order 2011, and The Counting Officers’, Regional Counting
Officers’ and Chief Counting Officers’ Accounts (Parliamentary Voting System
Referendum) Regulations 2011. Appendix D summarises the £66.9 million paid out
in accordance with the provisions of the PVSC Act and includes a statement of
assurance over these figures following National Audit Office review.
Although the total amount paid out to Counting Officers was just over £58 million,
the UK Government had set aside a provision of almost £80 million to cover these
costs – a significant overestimate.
The referendum was held on the same day as several other scheduled polls. This
meant that some costs - for example, the cost of hiring polling stations and count
venues – were shared between the referendum and the other polls (the costs of
which are met from other sources). Because of this, the overall costs paid out for this
referendum were lower than if the referendum had been ‘stand-alone’, with none of
the costs shared with other polls. We estimate that this referendum would have cost
around £90 million had it been held on a ‘stand-alone’ basis. Appendix B provides
an illustration of the estimated full cost of staging a future ‘stand-alone’ referendum
event.
The total spend of £75.265m represents a cost per eligible voter of £1.65 and a per
vote cast of £3.90. The equivalent costs based on our projections for a stand-alone
event (assuming an equivalent turn out) would be £2.17 and £5.15
Summary of recommendations
Estimating the costs of polls
Governments, and Accounting Officers responsible for administering the
reimbursement of the costs of future polls, should:
•
Accept and implement the principle of settling the funding provision for polls by six
months before polling day, to ensure certainty in planning for Counting Officers and
Returning Officers. This means that the legislation for European Parliamentary
elections in 2014 will need to be in place by November 2013 and by October 2014
for the UK Parliamentary general election in May 2015. Although the Scottish
Government has explicitly accepted this deadline for legislation it drafts on elections,
the UK government has so far failed to agree to the Commission’s (and others’)
repeated calls for a commitment to have legislation made six months before polling
day. The UK Government should make a clear commitment to this deadline being
much more than a planning ‘aspiration’ which is often not met. We see no reason
why the UK Government should not be able to make a specific commitment to the
six-month deadline in relation to the funding legislation in particular.
•
Work with the Commission and Returning Officers to develop a more robust
approach for estimating the Maximum Recoverable Amounts on which those
8
costs are based. The funding model used for future national polls should be
based on the evidence of past expenditure rather than average expenditure. We
are keen to share our experience and the information gained from our
involvement in the referendum to assist in this process.
Managing the costs of polls
The UK Government should:
•
Publish as soon as possible full cost details for the 2009 European
Parliamentary elections and 2010 UK Parliamentary general elections, along the
same lines as set out in this report. Governments should also publish full cost
details for all future polls funded along these lines, including the Police and
Crime Commissioner elections held on 15 November 2012.
•
Ensure more robust estimates of costs prior to future polls in order to avoid the
inaccuracies which arose in 2011.
Returning/Counting Officers should:
•
Retain responsibility for securing best value for goods and services. In doing so,
they should make use of information about previous costs, including the
information published in this report, to help secure the most efficient allocation of
resources at future elections and referendums.
The Electoral Commission will:
•
Undertake further analysis of the figures in this report, and those published by
the UK Government for polls in 2009 and 2010 in response to our
recommendation above, in order to identify those areas of expenditure on which
Returning/Counting Officers should particularly focus when considering whether
the evidence suggests they are securing best value.
•
Undertake further analysis of the most efficient procedures for managing the
count at major polls, with a view to identifying more accurately the likely
resources required.
Administering the reimbursement of costs
Accounting Officers responsible for administering the reimbursement of costs at
future national polls should:
•
Consider how to develop a more cost-effective process for obtaining assurance
that costs reimbursed have been properly incurred. In particular, Accounting
Officers should consider a more risk-based approach to validation than has
historically been taken; the current comprehensive, line-by-line checking process
(which the Commission followed for the 2011 referendum) is expensive and
time-consuming given the overall number and value of claims which are in fact
rejected. For example, Accounting Officers should consider whether to focus the
attention of detailed checking on those claims which appear unusual, or where
9
history suggests there may be problems, together with some risk-based checks
for sampling assurance. They should also consider the balance between
reliance on Returning/Counting Officers’ assurance that costs have been
correctly incurred and claimed, and reliance on secondary checks carried out on
the Accounting Officer’s behalf.
•
Set the deadline for the submission of claims for reimbursement no later than
eight months after polling day, but also examine how it could be brought down to
six months (particularly in conjunction with a more risk-based approach to
validation). Accounting Officers should also consider setting ‘staggered’
deadlines, with an earlier date for more straightforward claims, in order to avoid
large numbers of claims arriving on or near to a single deadline.
•
Ensure clear separation between the fees paid to Returning/Counting Officers for
their services in conducting polls, and the sums paid to reimburse the costs they
incur in conducting polls; and continue to pay 75% of the fee due immediately
following polling day, with the balance paid once each Returning/Counting
Officer’s final claim for reimbursement of their costs has been submitted and
settled. This approach provides an incentive to deal with reimbursements
quickly, as well as underlining Returning/Counting Officers’ responsibility for all
aspects of work to follow up the poll, as well as for conducting the poll itself.
•
Ensure that those responsible for day-to-day operational work on the
reimbursement process (whether the Election Claims Unit or any other team)
have in place robust processes and measures to have all claims submitted on
time; to deal with claims quickly as they are received; to respond quickly to
unexpected variations in workload; and to track and report the progress of cases
against agreed milestones. Accounting Officers should ensure that they have in
place a detailed contractual agreement with those responsible for day-to-day
operational work governing all aspects of the service they will provide, including:
-
•
The provision of adequate, clear and timely user guidance ahead of the
event.
Prompt registration and acknowledgement of claim receipts.
Avoiding lengthy delays in starting the processing of claims for any future
referendum.
Timely communication with Counting Officers, including updates on the
status of claims.
Rigorous case management of each claim.
Claim processing including query raising, recording and management.
Regular management information and feedback to the Accounting Officer.
Post completion review and analysis, including customer inputs, and the
development of learning points.
Process enhancements reflected in future operations / guidance.
Ensure that lessons learned from the Commission’s experience in managing
claims for the 2011 referendum are taken into account in:
-
preparing guidance and training for future polls
10
-
preparing procedures and tools to support the claims process (for example,
claims forms that are easier to use)
planning how to deal with claims: for example, the Commission agreed a
‘fast track’ procedure for the 2011 referendum which meant that more
straightforward claims were dealt with quicker.
The above measures will help to ensure that the whole process is more accurate,
simpler and more proportionate. In return for that, Counting Officers should check
more carefully claims and supporting documentation prior to submission.
Improving the framework for the reimbursement of costs
The UK Government, Scottish Government and Welsh Government should:
•
Consolidate Fees and Charges legislation, and include regulations concerning
the time and manner in which accounts are to be submitted (as in The Counting
Officers’, Regional Counting Officers’ and Chief Counting Officers’ Accounts
(Parliamentary Voting System Referendum) Regulations 2011) within future
Charges Orders.
•
Amend legislation to provide that for future referendums held under the Political
Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 framework, the Electoral
Commission should be responsible for agreeing with HM Treasury the Maximum
Recoverable Amounts for Counting Officers, as well as for administering the
payment of fees and reimbursement of costs.
•
Along with the Accounting Officer, provide for the issue of ‘solely attributable’
costs at future ‘combined’ polls to be dealt with on the same lines as the
Commission used at the 2011 referendum.
•
Consider requiring all future advances to be held in interest–bearing accounts to
ensure consistency of practice among Counting Officers and the more efficient
management of public resources.
•
Continue to allow Accounting Officers to withhold Returning/Counting Officers’
fees in part or in full, if they do not perform their duties satisfactorily (including
the proper and timely submission of their claims for reimbursement of costs).
•
As at the UK Parliamentary general election in 2010, and the Police & Crime
Commissioner elections in 2012, provide Returning/Counting Officers at future
national polls with an indemnity against their liability (effectively agreeing to meet
any proper claim from the public purse), instead of obtaining such cover through
expensive commercial insurance. The indemnity should not, however, cover any
costs which arise in whole or part from any deliberate or wilful negligence by a
Returning/Counting Officer.
•
As part of a wider review, Governments and Accounting Officers should consider
the management of funds, with a view to ensuring consistent practice and
adherence to the principle of keeping referendum related advances and
expenditure separate from local authority funds.
11
1 Introduction
About the referendum
1.1 The Electoral Commission is an independent body which reports directly to the
UK Parliament. We regulate political party and election finance and set standards for
well-run elections. We put voters first by working to support a healthy democracy,
where elections and referendums are based on our principles of trust, participation,
and no undue influence.
1.2 On 5 May 2011, the people of the UK voted in a referendum on the voting
system used to elect MPs to the House of Commons. The referendum was a key
element of the coalition agreement, following the 2010 UK Parliamentary general
election, between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats.
1.3 The referendum was held alongside scheduled elections to the Scottish
Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly,
and local government elections across Northern Ireland and in 279 local authorities
in England. There was also a UK parliamentary by-election (in Leicester South), five
mayoral elections and a referendum in Great Yarmouth on whether to have an
elected Mayor.
1.4 People were asked to vote yes or no on the following question:
At present, the UK uses the ‘first past the post’ system to elect MPs to the House of
Commons. Should the ‘alternative vote’ system be used instead?
The referendum result
1.5 Nearly 19.3 million people (42.2% of the electorate) voted in the referendum.
Turnout in England was 41.0%, in Scotland 50.7%, in Wales 41.7%, and in Northern
Ireland 55.8%. The outcome of the referendum was:
•
13.01 million people (67.90% of all valid votes cast) voted No
•
6.15 million people, (32.10% of all valid votes cast) voted Yes
1.6 Detailed results for all voting areas can be found on the Commission’s website
www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/results
The legal framework
1.7 The legal framework for referendums held under legislation enacted by the UK
Parliament is set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
(PPERA). That legislation gives the Electoral Commission a particular role in
referendums. It also specifies that there will be a Chief Counting Officer (CCO), with
overall responsibility for running a referendum; and Counting Officers (COs),
responsible for administering the referendum locally.
12
1.8 Before a referendum under the PPERA legislative framework can take place,
however, specific additional legislation is needed, covering not only important points
such as the date of the referendum and the referendum question, but also all the
detailed rules for running the referendum, and the rules that apply to campaigners.
1.9 The UK Government was responsible for drafting the detailed legislation for this
referendum. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies (PVSC) Bill was
introduced to the UK Parliament on 22 July 2010 and became an Act on 16 February
2011, just 11 weeks before polling day.
1.10 The PVSC Act included provisions to ‘combine’ the referendum with the
elections already scheduled to take place on 5 May 2011 – namely, to the Scottish
Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly,
and to local government in parts of England and across Northern Ireland. This had
implications for the costs of the referendum: these are discussed later in the report.
Key roles at the referendum
1.11 The Chair of the Electoral Commission, Jenny Watson, was CCO for the
referendum. She appointed Max Caller CBE, an Electoral Commissioner, as Deputy
Chief Counting Officer (DCCO). The CCO was responsible for certifying the overall
result of the referendum.
1.12 The PVSC Act provided that the local COs for each referendum voting area
across the UK should be the Returning Officers for elections to English local
councils, the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, as applicable.
The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland was the CO for the whole of Northern
Ireland.
1.13 There were 440 COs across the UK: 326 in England, 73 in Scotland, 40 in
Wales and 1 in Northern Ireland.
1.14 Using her powers under the PVSC Act, the CCO appointed Regional Counting
Officers (RCOs) for the 11 electoral regions in England, Scotland and Wales that
were specified in the Act 3; these corresponded with the European Parliamentary
election regions.
1.15 To ensure consistency in the delivery of the referendum across the whole of the
UK, and confidence in the result that she was required to certify, following
discussions with RCOs and COs, the CCO issued directions to COs about the way
they should deliver specific aspects of the referendum poll. She worked closely with
RCOs to monitor how those directions were implemented, as well as monitoring
wider preparations and the delivery of the poll itself.
1.16 The Electoral Commission was responsible for:
•
3
Commenting on the intelligibility of the referendum question proposed by the
Government.
Schedule 1 Section 3(2) of the PVSC Act
13
•
•
•
•
•
•
Registering organisations or individuals who wanted to campaign in the
referendum.
Monitoring spending on referendum campaigning, in line with the referendum
spending limits imposed by PPERA.
Considering applications for designation as lead campaign groups for each
referendum outcome.
Ensuring that designated organisations (if appointed) had access to certain
assistance.
Reporting on the administration of the referendum and on referendum campaign
spending.
Promoting public awareness of the referendum, its subject matter, and how to
vote in it.
Funding responsibilities
1.17 Following the usual framework for funding national polls (see paragraphs 2.49–
2.53 for further information), the PVSC Act allowed RCOs and COs to recover their
costs in respect of the referendum, and to be paid a personal fee for their work on
delivering the poll.
1.18 The UK Government retained responsibility for establishing the amounts that
RCOs and COs could recover. However, the Electoral Commission was given
responsibility for administering the process by which RCOs and COs were paid their
fees, and reimbursed for their costs in running the referendum. The Commission was
given powers to make regulations setting out the detailed procedures for that
process.
1.19 The CCO was given the ability to recover costs that would otherwise have been
incurred by RCOs or COs, if it was more economical for her to incur those costs
centrally. She used this ability in relation to the costs of ‘sweeps’ carried out by
Royal Mail to identify postal votes that were still in mail centres awaiting delivery to
Counting Officers on polling day.
About this report
1.20 In October 2011 we published a report on how the referendum was
administered, which reviewed the experience of voters, the referendum campaign
and how the referendum was managed. 4 In February 2012 we published a further
report, dealing with campaign spending at the referendum. This third report is about
the costs of the referendum, and how they were funded. This is the first time that the
Electoral Commission, rather than the Government, has been responsible for
administering the funding for a UK-wide poll, and the report makes a number of
important recommendations that should be addressed urgently in order to produce a
more appropriate and streamlined funding framework for the future.
4
The Electoral Commission (October 2011) Referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary
elections: Report on the May 2011 referendum.
14
1.21 The elections for Police and Crime Commissioners held on 15 November 2012
were funded by a similar process led by the Home Office. Following the publication
of this report, the next UK-wide poll due to be funded in a similar way will be the
elections to the European Parliament in June 2014. The recommendations we set
out in this report should be acted upon in good time, to ensure that the funding of
those elections does not suffer from the problems we identify in this report on the
current system. The autumn 2014 independence referendum in Scotland is likely to
be funded in a similar way and the Scottish Government will also want to consider all
the relevant recommendations in this report.
1.22 Chapter 2 of this report focuses on the costs of the referendum and the
framework for reimbursing COs. Chapter 3 examines the system for administering
the funding for the referendum. Chapter 4 focuses on wider recommendations
designed to improve the current funding model for referendums.
1.23 Since 2007 we have collected and analysed data from Electoral Registration
Officers (EROs) and Returning Officers (ROs) to establish a better understanding of
the types, and levels, of expenditure required to deliver electoral administration
functions across Great Britain (covering the financial years 2007/8 to 2010/11). We
are publishing these findings alongside this report, which highlights how we propose
to work from the basis we have now to establish a model which can provide us with
more detailed information on spend and the activities it relates to, including how this
impacts on performance. 5 One area in which we intend to undertake further analysis
relates to count processes and the most efficient procedures for managing the count
at major polls, with a view to identifying more accurately the likely resources
required.
5
The Electoral Commission (December 2012) The cost of electoral administration in Great Britain:
Financial information surveys 2009–10 and 2010–11.
15
2 What the referendum cost and
how it was paid for
What the referendum cost
2.1 The cost met from funds overseen by the UK Parliament of running the
referendum was just over £75 million.
2.2 Although this figure includes the cost of grants paid to the campaigners by the
Electoral Commission under the provisions of PPERA, it excludes spending by
campaigners funded from other sources. In our February 2012 report on referendum
campaign spending, we reported that the total spending by all campaigners on the
‘Yes’ side was £2.210 million and the total spending on the ‘No’ side was £3.472
million.
2.3 It also excludes costs incurred by the broadcasters who were required by
PPERA to carry referendum campaign broadcasts on behalf of the lead campaigners
in a referendum. This is because there was no lost revenue from advertising to the
BBC, and the commercial broadcasters reduced the length of their scheduled
programmes rather than replace adverts to accommodate the referendum
broadcasts. In our October 2011 report on the referendum we concluded
referendum broadcasts were appropriately seen as benefits to campaigners and
estimated these to be around £420,000 for TV and around £30,000 for radio.
Costs paid directly by the Electoral Commission
2.4 The Electoral Commission paid out a total of £17.1 million directly in relation to
the referendum.
2.5 Around half of this (£8.3 million) was authorised by the UK Parliament through
the Commission’s annual Estimates (which are approved following scrutiny by the
Speaker’s Committee, which is required to take account of advice from the Treasury
and reports by the National Audit Office on the Commission’s spending). This
covered public awareness activity, staffing costs, the costs of administering
payments to Counting Officers, and the payment of grants to the lead campaigners.
2.6 The balance (£8.8 million) was authorised by the UK Parliament through the
PVSC Act itself. All these costs were paid to the Royal Mail:
•
£8.5 million was the cost of delivering campaign material from the two lead
campaigners to electors. The two designated lead campaign organisations were
entitled to have a referendum address delivered to each elector or household in
areas of their choosing across the UK. The total sum paid to the Royal Mail by
the Commission for the cost of this service was made up of:
- £1.5 million for delivering material from ‘Yes to Fairer Votes’
16
- £6.7 million for delivering material from ‘No to AV’
- £0.3 million administration fee
•
The total number of campaign literature items produced and delivered by Royal
Mail in respect of each campaign was 8.5 million for the ‘Yes to Fairer Votes’
campaign, and 40 million for the ‘No to AV campaign’.
•
£269,000 was the cost of conducting ‘sweeps’ to identify postal votes that were
still in mail centres awaiting delivery to Counting Officers (COs) on polling day.
The Chief Counting Officer (CCO) directed the use of ‘sweeps’, in order to
ensure that postal votes were received at count centres before the close of poll,
and to ensure a consistent approach across the UK. The cost of the ‘sweeps’
could have been paid separately by each CO across the UK, and reclaimed from
the Commission, but it was more economical for the Commission (on behalf of
the CCO) to incur those costs centrally.
Public awareness activity
2.7 Of the costs authorised through the Commission’s annual Estimates, the
largest category (£7.523m) was spent on public awareness activity in advance of the
referendum. This included TV, radio and online advertising, an information booklet
sent to 27.8 million households; advertising testing; and public opinion tracking
research.
2.8 The public awareness figure also includes just under £60,000 paid to reimburse
COs for the costs of local public awareness activity that they incurred during the final
28 days of the referendum campaign. During this period, COs were prevented by
statute from carrying out those activities, because there was a general ban on local
government officers spending on such activity in relation to the upcoming poll. It was
important that local public awareness activity continued, and so the Commission
asked COs to act on its behalf during this period, and reimbursed the costs they
incurred in doing so.
2.9 We welcome the fact that the UK Government has responded to our October
2011 recommendation that the statutory framework for referendums should
specifically allow COs to continue to promote participation at a poll, and not be
caught by the general prohibition on local government public awareness activity. We
note that the UK Government has indicated that it will look to make any relevant
changes in a suitable legislative vehicle.
Grants to referendum campaigners
2.10 Among other benefits, designated lead campaign groups were entitled to a
publicly funded grant. The Commission was responsible for setting the terms and
conditions of the grant, administering its payment and auditing its use.
17
2.11 The maximum grant available at the referendum was £380,000 for each of the
designated lead campaign groups. More information on the grant and the rationale
behind the level are set out in our October 2011 referendum report. 6
2.12 The final audited amounts paid under the grant were:
•
No to AV
£146,432
•
Yes to Fairer Votes
£140,457
2.13 The grant claims and supporting invoices and receipts can be found on our
website. 7
Additional staffing
2.14 The Commission spent £80,000 on additional staff to support the project
management of the referendum and the IT system used to collate the results, and on
overtime payments.
Costs of administering payment of fees and costs to
Counting Officers
2.15 From June 2011 to October 2012, the Commission engaged the Election
Claims Unit (ECU), part of the Finance and Shared Services Division (FSSD) of the
Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG), to process claims from
COs for reimbursement of their costs. The cost for ECU’s services, which included
staffing, accommodation and associated administrative costs, was £450,000. There
is more detail on the role of the ECU in Chapter 3 of this report.
Amounts paid to Counting Officers
2.16 £55.6 million was paid to COs in reimbursement of their costs.
2.17 £2.5 million was paid to COs in fees for their services.
Counting Officer and Regional Counting Officer costs
Polling station costs: £27.3 million (Government estimate: £31.6 million)
2.18 This category includes:
6
The Electoral Commission (October 2011) Referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary
elections: Report on the May 2011 referendum, paragraphs 5.55-5.68.
7
Grants claims of designated lead campaigners at the PVS referendum:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-finance-analysis/referendumexpenditure/2011-parliamentary-voting-system-referendum#grants
18
•
•
•
•
•
•
The costs, where applicable, of both permanent and temporary venues to house
the 42,781 polling stations across the UK at the referendum (£4.3 million). Many
venues housed two or more separate polling stations.
The costs of equipment used in polling stations such as polling booths, ballot
boxes, stationery and notices (£1.5 million).
The costs of preparing and transporting equipment for use in polling stations
(£2.2 million).
The costs of printing the 45.7 million ballot papers produced for the referendum
(£2.7 million).
Payments made to the 119,500 polling station staff, and staff who supervised
polling stations (£15.6 million) – this includes costs associated with training those
staff in advance of polling day.
Additional costs in respect of supplements paid for combined polls (£1.2 million).
2.19 The average cost of providing a polling station was £637, but there were
significant variations between different parts of the UK – ranging from average costs
in Wales of around £486 per polling station, to average costs in London of around
£1,323 per polling station.
2.20 The Government’s estimate of the likely polling station costs assumed there
would be just under 41,000 polling stations across the UK. In fact there were just
under 42,800. The additional polling stations were provided in accordance with the
CCO’s direction that no more than 2,500 electors should be dealt with by any
individual polling station. Notwithstanding this, however, the overall cost for polling
station accommodation was significantly (at just over 50%) less than the
Government’s estimate: £4.4 million against the estimate of £8.6 million.
2.21 Costs associated with preparing and transporting equipment were £2.2 million
against a Government estimate of £1.7 million, an under estimate of £500,000 or 29%.
2.22 The costs of printing ballot papers exceeded the Government’s estimate by
almost 50%: £2.66 million against the estimate of £1.8 million. The average cost of
printing each ballot paper was 5.8p. Across the UK, this figure varied between a low
of 3.8p for London and a high of 9.3p in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the
high cost was attributed to there being only one printer in Northern Ireland being able
to fulfil the print requirement, and difficulty faced by that printer in obtaining the
correct coloured paper for the grey ballot papers, requiring colouring of white paper.
2.23 The cost of polling station staff and supervising officers exceeded estimates by
£300,000: £13.3 million against £13 million. The main reason for this was the need
for COs to comply with the CCO’s direction specifying minimum staffing ratios at
polling stations.
2.24 Although overall, the actual costs incurred by COs in providing, equipping and
staffing polling stations, and printing ballot papers, proved to be 14% below the
Government’s estimate, and all parts of the UK incurred lower costs than the
estimate, the estimates were more accurate in some parts of the UK than others.
For example, polling station costs were just 76.3% of the estimate in the South West,
but nearly 92% of the estimate in London.
19
Postal vote costs: £10.6 million (Government estimate: £16.7 million)
2.25 This category includes:
•
•
•
•
the cost of printing and postage (both outward and return – postal voters are
given a pre-paid return envelope) for the almost 7.2 million postal votes issued,
and the 5.2 million postal votes returned by voters, at the referendum
payments made to staff working on the issue, receipt and checking of postal
votes
the costs, where applicable, of venues used to house the postal vote operation
the costs of equipment used in issuing, receiving and checking postal votes
such as insertion machines, letter openers, and scanning machines for
checking dates of birth and signatures.
2.26 For the UK as a whole, the average total cost of dealing with each postal vote
returned by voters was £2.05, compared with the Government’s estimate of £2.88.
The average cost varied across the UK – ranging from £1.26 per returned postal
vote in Northern Ireland, to £3.37 in London.
2.27 The costs of printing and postage for postal votes were significantly less than
the Government had estimated – an average printing cost of 49p per postal vote
pack issued, compared with the estimate of 55p; and average outward and inward
postage costs of 22p and 18p respectively per pack, compared with estimates of 46p
for both outward and inward postage. Average combined printing and postage costs
per issued vote ranged from 57p in Wales and Northern Ireland to £1.28 for London.
Many COs were able to obtain significant discounts from Royal Mail by pre-sorting
the postal vote packs. (Since the referendum, however, Royal Mail have changed
their approach to offering discounts for large-volume mailings: it will be important for
future estimates of postal voting postage costs to take careful account of this
change.)
2.28 The costs of payments to staff working on postal votes were substantially less
than the Government’s estimate. The biggest variations were in respect of postal
vote opening (£1.9 million compared to an estimate of £3.7 million) and training
(where only £48,000 was spent compared to an estimate of £474,000). The
automation of postal vote opening and scanning may account for much of this, and
the use of experienced staff at this process may account for associated lack of
training costs.
2.29 Although overall, postal vote costs – like polling station costs - were
consistently lower than the Government had estimated; again the estimates were
more accurate in some parts of the UK than others. Postal vote costs in Wales were
just 48% of the estimate, but in London they were 84% of the estimate.
Poll card costs: £6.3 million (Government estimate: £17.2 million)
2.30 This category includes:
•
The cost of printing and posting out 45.7 million poll cards to all electors.
•
The cost of payments to staff involved in this exercise.
20
2.31 The costs of printing poll cards were somewhat lower than the Government had
estimated – an average printing cost of 2.7p per card, compared with the estimate of
3p per card.
2.32 However, as with postal votes, COs incurred significantly lower postage costs
than the Government had estimated – an average of 10.4p per card, against an
estimate of 32p. Many COs engaged staff to hand deliver poll cards at rates
significantly below equivalent postage rates, and others obtained discounts from
Royal Mail.
2.33 Spend in all regions was below the estimated figure. Again, there were
variations across the UK – the widest gap was in Scotland, where poll card costs
were just 27% of the estimate; London had the narrowest gap, but costs were still
just 57% of the estimate.
Count costs: £6.8 million (Government estimate: £5.8 million)
2.34 This category includes:
•
The costs, where applicable, of approximately 400 venues to house the counts,
including venue security costs.
•
The costs of transporting ballot papers from polling stations to count centres.
•
The costs of equipment used at count centres.
•
Payments made to over 80,500 count centre staff – this includes costs
associated with training those staff.
2.35 Overall, COs incurred costs 18% higher than the Government had estimated on
the counts. Significant contributory elements included venue costs (123% of the
estimate) and staff costs (149% of the estimate).
2.36 Regional variations were particularly evident in this category: overall costs were
86% of the estimate in both the North East and the East of England. In Scotland,
they were 273% of the estimate. The high figure in Scotland was due principally to
some COs’ (particularly those in Edinburgh and Glasgow) requirement to use
significantly larger count venues than they had used in recent years, to allow space
to enable the verification and count for the referendum to take place in accordance
with the CCO’s directions on timing, while they were also managing the verification
and count of ballot papers for the elections to the Scottish Parliament.
Other costs: £4.7 million (Government estimate: £3.5 million)
2.37 This category includes:
•
Costs of staff employed on clerical and administrative support to the CO
throughout the referendum period (i.e., not specifically related to the specific
exercises covered above).
•
Costs of materials and services that could not be accounted for under other
categories of expenditure, such as costs of printing statutory and other notices,
21
general stationery, general postage, software licence fees, telephone bills, and
bank charges.
•
Overall, COs spent nearly 35% more in this category than the Government had
estimated. These additional costs were incurred entirely on materials. The level
of costs above the estimates ranged from 11% in Yorkshire and the Humber, to
43% in London.
2.38 It is possible that some of the additional spending claimed by COs under this
category may reflect different approaches in different areas to the allocation of
certain costs, such as recharges for call centres, or to different claims categories, for
example recharging stationery and printing costs. In other words, some COs may
have claimed expenditure under this category which other COs may have claimed
under another. While we are satisfied that our procedures ensured that all the costs
reimbursed were legitimately incurred by COs in running the referendum, it is evident
that the procedures were not perfect in ensuring that these costs were recorded
under the appropriate category in every case. Appendix D gives details of the £66.9
million paid out in accordance with the provisions of the PVSC Act. Appendix B
provides further information about the breakdown of costs. Appendix A gives details
of the £58 million paid out to COs and RCOs.
Counting Officer and Regional Counting Officer fees: £2.5 million (Government
estimate: £2.5 million)
2.39 The 440 COs at the referendum were entitled to be paid a fee for conducting
the referendum. The fee, set by the Cabinet Office, was £475 for each 10,000
electors, with a minimum fee per CO of £2,500 and further adjustments to reflect
combination with other elections. The fees paid to COs totalled £2.3 million.
2.40 All but one CO received the full fee to which they were entitled. The CO for the
London Borough of Merton chose not to receive his fee.
2.41 The 11 Regional Counting Officers (RCOs) were entitled to an additional fee for
their services above that paid for their services as COs. This was a fixed fee of
£12,000 and not dependent upon the size of the region covered. All eleven RCOs
received this fee.
2.42 The Commission had the ability to withhold all or part of a CO’s or RCO’s fee if
they failed to perform their duties satisfactorily, but in the event the Commission did
not withhold any fees from COs or RCOs.
2.43 The highest fee paid to an individual CO in England was £38,246 paid to the
CO for Birmingham reflecting the electorate of the largest single unitary authority in
the UK. The CO for Leeds received the second largest fee of £28,529. Thirty six
other COs received fees between £10,000 and £20,000. Three COs received the
minimum fee of £2,500. The average fee paid in respect of each voting area cross
the UK was £5,312.
2.44 In Scotland and Wales the majority of COs were responsible for more than one
voting area. The highest fee was £23,058 received by the CO for Glasgow who was
responsible for eight voting areas.
22
2.45 The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland does not receive a separate fee
for his CO duties.
2.46 The Deputy Chief Counting Officer (DCCO) received fees of £16,628 relating to
his role as DCCO for the referendum though this amount was paid as part of his
Commissioner fee for the year and is not included in the costs in this report.
2.47 The Chair of the Electoral Commission received no separate fee for her role as
CCO and, other than some overtime payments to critical support staff, Commission
employees received no additional payments for their work on the referendum
The framework for reimbursing Counting
Officers’ costs
2.48 The Fees and Charges Order sets out the maximum amount each individual
CO can recover in respect of their costs, based upon assumptions of average spend
against different types of expenditure. Legislative requirements and directions issued
by the CCO determine many of the costs that need to be incurred, such as the need
to provide staff and venues and the number that should be provided. COs were able
to affect some of the costs incurred by decisions taken locally, for example based
upon costs they were able to negotiate for hire of polling stations and for the count
venue, for the employment of staff employed at polling stations and at the count, and
for printing and postage costs for polling stations and for postal voting.
Who pays for polls?
2.49 The basic costs incurred by COs (and at elections, Returning Officers) in
running elections and referendums, are similar from poll to poll. However, in
England, Scotland and Wales the way in which those costs are met differs according
to the type of poll being run.
2.50 Returning/Counting Officers recover the costs of elections to ‘principal area’
local authorities (unitary authorities, county councils, borough and district councils)
and local referendums from the relevant local authority. (Parish and community
council elections are managed by the Returning Officer (RO) for the principal area
authority, who may recharge the parish for the costs of the election.) In Northern
Ireland, the Chief Electoral Officer recovers the costs of local elections from the local
authorities concerned. In Scotland, local councils pay for their own elections.
However, the Scottish Government procured and paid for the e-counting system
used at the 2007 and 2012 elections.
2.51 For other polls, Returning/Counting Officers recover their costs via a central
source – generally the relevant UK Government department, or the Welsh Government
in the case of Welsh Assembly elections. These arrangements apply for:
•
UK Parliamentary general elections (Cabinet Office, Scotland Office, Northern
Ireland Office).
23
•
•
•
•
European Parliamentary elections (Cabinet Office, Scotland Office, Northern
Ireland Office).
Scottish Parliamentary elections (Scotland Office).
Welsh Assembly elections (Welsh Government).
Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections (Home Office).
2.52 In Northern Ireland, the cost of UK Parliamentary general and European
Parliamentary elections are financed by HM Treasury, while the Northern Ireland
Assembly election is paid for by the Northern Ireland Executive. Funding for these
three elections is provided to the Northern Ireland Office, who in turn make funds
available to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. Local councils in
Northern Ireland meet the costs of their own elections.
2.53 At the 2011 referendum, three main features were different:
•
COs recovered their costs from the Electoral Commission rather than a UK
Government department or the Welsh Government.
•
The Commission dealt with all costs across the UK, rather than having different
arrangements in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
•
The Commission brought forward the deadline for COs to submit their claims for
reimbursement. Previously, the UK Government had set the deadline 12 months
after polling day. We were concerned that this meant it took too long to finalise
the payments for a particular poll; and on a practical level, a year after polling
day many Returning/Counting Officers and their teams are busy with the next set
of polls. We set a deadline of 5 January 2012 - eight months after polling day.
The relevant Governments set the same deadline for claims in relation to the
costs of the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales elections held
on the same day as the referendum.
Estimating the costs of polls
2.54 Before 2006, the UK government set limits on the amount that would be
reimbursed for some items of expenditure (such as payments to polling station staff
and the costs of the election count); other costs (such as accommodation, equipment
and printing costs) were reimbursed as long as ROs could demonstrate they had
actually been incurred, and were ‘necessary’ to the conduct of the poll.
2.55 The Electoral Administration Act 2006 introduced a new approach, in which the
UK Government set an overall ‘Maximum Recoverable Amount’ (MRA) for all
expenditure by each RO or CO, but did not set limits on individual types of
expenditure within that overall amount, although indicative amounts were shown.
Within the MRA, the RO/CO was able to incur and claim reimbursement for
expenditure as they saw fit, provided they could demonstrate that the costs were
necessary for the efficient and effective conduct of the poll.
2.56 This new approach was followed in England and Wales in dealing with the
costs of the 2009 European Parliament elections and in England, Scotland and
Wales at the 2010 UK Parliamentary general election. It had been the Government’s
24
intention to review the approach after the 2010 UK Parliamentary general election,
but the referendum was called before the impact of the change had been evaluated.
2.57 Based on our understanding that the new approach introduced in 2006 was
working reasonably well, and because there was little time available to make
fundamental changes before the 2011 referendum, the Commission did not seek to
make many significant changes to that approach, nor to the arrangements for
administering the process of dealing with claims from COs for recovery of their costs.
It was, however, the case that because the UK Government had set the deadline for
ROs to submit claims for their costs at the 2009 European Parliamentary at June
2010, and the deadline for claims for the 2010 UK Parliamentary general election at
May 2011, there was little hard data available about the success or otherwise of the
new approach and the administrative procedures associated with it. In order to
estimate the likely costs of the 2011 referendum, the Cabinet Office followed its
usual approach of drawing up a series of estimated MRAs for each Counting Officer,
based on assumptions about the likely costs under the broad headings of:
•
Cost of providing Polling Stations (based on assumptions about numbers of staff
and supervisors, pay rates, numbers and costs of polling stations, numbers of
electors, cost of producing ballot papers, number of combined polls to be
managed etc.).
•
Cost of despatching, receiving, checking and counting postal votes (based on
assumptions about numbers of postal voters, unit costs of printing and postage,
and staff required to deal with the various procedures, etc.).
•
Cost of producing and delivering poll cards (based on assumptions about unit
costs of printing, staff required to process despatch, postage costs etc.).
•
Cost of counting the ballot papers (based on assumptions about turnout,
transportation of ballot papers, numbers and costs of counting venues, staff
required to count the ballot papers, speed of the count, etc.).
•
Other costs (including general clerical costs in supporting the CO, additional
materials and services etc.).
•
Fee payments to COs (a minimum figure of £2,500, with higher figures for some
COs based on electorate numbers, the number of combined polls to be
managed, etc.).
2.58 In estimating the MRAs, the Cabinet Office were able to use some outturn
results available from the process of reimbursing ROs’ costs at the 2009 European
Parliamentary elections, and the 2010 UK Parliamentary general election. They also
had to make assumptions about the likely costs involved in delivering the
referendum. There was particular debate about the costs of following directions
issued by the CCO, in the interests of consistency across the UK, about the conduct
of the poll and the count. These directions included, for example, requirements
about the maximum number of electors to be allocated to each polling station, and
the minimum number of staff to be allocated to each polling station. Directions such
as these required some COs to provide more polling stations, and/or to recruit more
staff, than at previous polls, which had the potential to give rise to additional costs.
25
2.59 The Cabinet Office shared their detailed calculations, assumptions and
reasoning with the Commission and other stakeholders. There were noticeable
tensions during that process, with other parties keen to ensure that the estimates
properly reflected the costs considered necessary to deliver the referendum
effectively.
Late legislation
2.60 The agreed MRAs were set out in an Order 8 made by the UK Government on 4
April 2011 – seven weeks after the PVSC Act became law, and just 4½ weeks
before polling day. By this time, the referendum was already officially under way.
2.61 The last-minute finalization of the MRAs caused considerable problems for COs
and RCOs, who by this time had had to commit resources without any statutory
certainty that they would be able to recover their proposed spending.
2.62 As part of her pre-poll monitoring activity, the CCO asked COs to confirm that
they were confident they would have the necessary resources to deliver the
referendum in accordance with her directions. A number of COs said they were
unable to give any definitive assurance until there was certainty about the funds to
be made available; they could not commit until the Charges Order had been made,
by which time (see above) the referendum was just 4½ weeks away.
2.63 Linked to this, the Commission could not publish its regulations on the
procedure for recovering COs’ costs until all the legislation was in place (we finally
made the regulations on 5 April 2011, one day after the UK Government made its
Charges Order). 9 More importantly, we could not provide COs with any funds via the
‘advance’ process until the legislation gave us the legal authority to do so. We were
able to issue our guidance to COs on how to follow procedures on 31 March 2011,
as soon as we had advance sight of the confirmed final version of the Order and four
days in advance of the Charges Order being made.
2.64 In practice, COs at the referendum had to make assumptions, based on
assurances from Cabinet Office officials, that their costs would be reimbursed. COs
deserve a greater level of certainty at a much earlier stage, and there is no reason
why Governments should not provide it.
2.65 This delay in settling the funding for the 2011 referendum was by no means a
one-off. The Charges Order dealing with funding for ROs at the Police and Crime
Commissioner elections held on 15 November 2012 did not come into force until 13
September 2012 – 8½ weeks before polling day, and 12 months after the legislation
setting up the elections came into force. Fees and Charges guidance was not issued
until Friday 9 November 2012. As with the 2011 referendum, this meant that ROs
8
The Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Local Returning Officers’ and Police Area Returning
Officers’ Charges) Order 2012:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/2378/pdfs/uksi_20122378_en.pdf
9
The Counting Officers’, Regional Counting Officers’ and Chief Counting Officer’ Accounts
(Parliamentary Voting System Referendum) Regulations 2011
26
had to undertake all the initial stages of preparation for the poll, for example
recruiting polling station and count staff, and booking premises, without certainty
about the amounts they would be able to recover.
2.66 We recommend that the UK Government accept and implement the principle
of settling the funding provision for polls by six months before polling day to ensure
certainty in planning for Counting Officers and Returning Officers. This means that
the legislation for European Parliamentary elections in 2014 will need to be in place
by November 2013 and by October 2014 for the UK Parliamentary general election
in May 2015.
2.67 Although the Scottish Government has explicitly accepted this deadline for
legislation it drafts on elections, the UK government has so far failed to agree to the
Commission’s (and others’) repeated calls for a commitment to have legislation
made six months before polling day. The UK Government should make a clear
commitment to this deadline being much more than a planning ‘aspiration’ which is
often not met. We see no reason why the UK Government should not be able to
make a specific commitment to the six-month deadline in relation to the funding
legislation in particular.
2.68 Estimated costs for each area of spend can be seen as MRA figures in the
analysis of cost by expense type at Appendix B.
2.69 We further recommend that Fees and Charges legislation should be
consolidated, and future regulations concerning the time and manner in which
accounts are to be submitted (as in The Counting Officers’, Regional Counting
Officers’ and Chief Counting Officer’ Accounts (Parliamentary Voting System
Referendum) Regulations 2011) should be included within future Charges Orders.
This will improve the simplicity and accessibility of the law in this area.
Dealing with the costs of ‘combined’ polls
2.70 As mentioned in paragraph 1.10 the referendum was statutorily ‘combined’ with
other polls scheduled to take place on the same day. Combining polls allows voters
to cast their vote in respect of more than one poll conveniently at the same time and
also allows substantial financial savings to be made through sharing costs for
identical processes – for example, by allowing postal ballot papers to be sent out in
the same envelope, and by using the same venues and staff for polling stations and
counting votes. There is no evidence to suggest that voters are confused by
combining a small number of polls in this way, and the benefits of doing so are clear.
2.71 When polls paid for from different sources 10 are ‘combined’ on the same day,
the costs that apply to more than one poll are split between the different elections
and referendums taking place, with the various organisations responsible for paying
the costs of the polls each reimbursing an equal proportion of the total costs. 11 So,
10
See paragraphs 2.49–2.52.
This was provided for in the PVSC Act 2011. Schedule 5, Part 1, Section 5 “Cost of Combined
Polls” stated that the cost of taking the combined polls (excluding any cost solely attributable
11
27
for example, where the 2011 referendum took place alongside a local council
election in England, 50% of the costs that applied to both polls would be recovered
from the Electoral Commission, and 50% from the local council.
2.72 Some COs raised concerns that, because the CCO’s directions on how to
manage the referendum would bring additional costs for all the polls taking place on
the same day, an equal split of costs would not give an appropriate result. For
example, they said, if a local council was asked to meet 50% of the additional costs
of providing extra polling stations or staff (costs incurred in order to comply with the
CCO’s directions for the referendum), then the council would effectively be meeting
extra costs that they would not have deemed necessary simply in order to deliver the
local council election.
2.73 The Commission therefore introduced a provision for COs to demonstrate that
an unequal split between the Commission and their local council was appropriate, by
showing that they had incurred additional costs in running other polls that were in
fact ‘solely attributable’ to requirements associated with the referendum. 12
2.74 The calculation was not always straightforward – on 5 May 2011 alongside the
referendum, elections were held for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly,
the Northern Ireland Assembly, and local authorities in England, Scotland, and
Northern Ireland. There was also a UK Parliamentary by-election in Leicester South,
five mayoral elections and one referendum on having an elected mayor, and
numerous local authority by-elections, as well as parish and community council
elections and by-elections. In all of these cases of combination, COs/ROs were
required to apportion the expenditure they incurred in order to account each
individual poll.
2.75 In the event, 125 COs claimed a total of £978,000 of ‘solely attributable’ costs;
and five RCOs claimed a total of £47,000 for ‘solely attributable’ staffing costs.
These ‘solely attributable’ costs represented 1.8% of the total costs reimbursed by
the Commission to COs. Appendix B contains further details on ‘solely attributable’
costs paid out.
2.76 Although at the 2011 referendum the issue of ‘solely attributable’ costs was a
relatively small element of the overall costs, we recommend that Governments and
Accounting Officers make similar provisions at future ‘combined’ polls.
to the referendum or to a particular relevant election), and any cost attributable to their combination,
was to be apportioned equally among them.
12
Solely attributable costs are those incurred during a combined event but considered by the relevant
Counting Officer to arise directly as a result of a directive from the Chief Counting Officer. The costs
identified below are those that we identified as necessary to deliver the referendum to the required
standard, over and above the costs that Counting Officers said they would normally incur as shared
costs at a combined election. This is the sum we would have required in addition from Treasury to
meet overall expenditure had the original assumptions calculated by Cabinet Office not been
inaccurate.
28
Amounts advanced and reimbursed
2.77 In line with the UK Government’s previous practice, at the beginning of April
2011 (as soon as we had statutory authority to do so) we paid COs an advance of
75% of their MRA. The purpose of this is to allow COs to meet any immediate prepoll costs and pay for staff, venues, equipment and other services immediately after
the poll.
2.78 In theory, that left the remainder of each CO’s claim to be reimbursed as soon
as their claim was submitted and settled – providing a useful incentive for COs to
prepare and submit their claims quickly after the poll. Also in line with previous
practice, we allowed COs who thought their 75% advance would be insufficient to
meet their immediate costs to apply for an increased advance (up to 90% of the
MRA in total).
2.79 However, as can be seen from paragraphs 2.18–2.38 above, the estimates that
the MRAs were based on proved to be mostly far in excess of the actual sum
required to conduct the referendum – which meant that the incentive aspect of the
advance procedure was nullified.
2.80 The average final settlement was in fact only 73% of the MRA – less than the
75% advance.
Table 2: Average final settlement as % of MRA
Total MRA
75% Advanced
in April 2011
Final
settlement
Settlement as %
of MRA
£79.8m
£59.8m
£58.1m
73%
2.81 Of the 451 claims submitted from COs for the 440 voting areas and 11 RCOs,
273 claims (61%) were for less than the 75% advance, and we had to recover the
unspent balance from the COs/RCOs. Unspent balances ranged from £41 to almost
£518,000 – the average sum was around £18,700. In total we recovered £5.1 million
in unspent advances.
2.82 The Commission strongly advised COs to open separate bank or building
society accounts for their initial advances and subsequent referendum expenditure.
This, we argued, would ensure that the funds were kept separate from local authority
money and that the expenditure could be easily accounted for. Our guidance was not
universally followed, however, with some COs opting to deposit funds in local
authority accounts as this would allow for easier management of funds by suitably
skilled local authority staff and utilise systems for better processing of payments. We
think that this issue needs to be addressed as part of a wider review to ensure
consistent practice and adherence to the principle of keeping referendum related
advances and expenditure separate from local authority funds.
2.83 COs were not required to hold their advances in interest-bearing accounts, but
if they did, the interest earned was used to contribute to their overall costs. This
money could, however, have been in interest bearing accounts held by the CO, in
29
which case any interest payments would have been deducted as a contribution to
the final settlement. This was highlighted in our guidance to COs.
2.84 We recommend that Governments and Accounting Officers should consider
requiring all future advances to be held in interest–bearing accounts to ensure
consistency of practice among COs and the more efficient management of public
resources.
2.85 178 claims (39%) were for more than the 75% advance, varying from £352 to
£123,608 - the average sum was just under £19,000. In total we paid out £3.4 million
in additional payments to settle final claims.
2.86 Of the 178 claims for more than the 75% advance, 16 separate claims, from 3
COs and one RCO, exceeded the Maximum Recoverable Amount. The PVSC Act
provided for the payment of such excess expenditure, provided the Electoral
Commission Accounting Officer and HM Treasury were both satisfied that it had
been necessarily incurred in delivering the referendum. Consent was given to pay
these additional amounts.
2.87 Fourteen of the 16 claims exceeding the MRA related to voting areas under the
responsibility of the COs for Glasgow and Edinburgh, the excesses totalling 8.5%
and 12.4% respectively. The principal cause was due to their judgement that it was
necessary to hire and prepare substantially larger count venues than usual because
of combination with the Scottish Parliamentary elections. One of the remaining
claims related to the RCO for the North West (excess of 42%) and again the main
reason was related to the RCO’s judgement that he needed to utilise additional
space at the count venue also being used for the Manchester voting area count. The
final claim exceeding the MRA related to the City of London where the main reason
for an excess of 14% related to high core costs of setting up and printing postal
votes for an area with a very small electorate, hence the calculated assumed costs
based on electorate did not properly reflect actual costs.
2.88 The estimated cost of running a stand–alone referendum in Northern Ireland
was £2.5 million (they had used the same figure for both the 2009 European
Parliamentary election and the 2010 UK Parliamentary general election). In fact,
actual expenditure on the referendum in Northern Ireland was just under £1.36
million (54% of the MRA – the largest over-estimate of all counting areas across the
UK). However, it is important to point out that the referendum was combined with
elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and local government, meaning that the
costs of the events were divided, reducing actual expenditure attributable to the
referendum.
2.89 Although the Electoral Commission was responsible for the reimbursement of
COs’ claims, and the Commission’s Accounting Officer was responsible to
Parliament for ensuring that the funds were properly used, it was the Cabinet Office
that estimated the likely costs, and negotiated them with HM Treasury. Though it is
not essential for the two processes to be combined there are clear advantages to an
early consideration and resolution of any points of potential conflict or discontent.
2.90 We recommend that for future referendums held under the PPERA framework,
the UK Government should amend PPERA to give responsibility to the Electoral
30
Commission for agreeing with HM Treasury the MRAs for Counting Officers, as well
as for administering the payment of fees and reimbursement of costs. In order to
avoid the issues which arose in 2011, we recommend that the UK Government
works with the Commission and Returning Officers to develop a more robust
approach for estimating the MRAs on which referendum costs are based.
2.91 We recommend that Returning Officers and Counting Officers should retain
responsibility for securing best value for goods and services. In doing so, they should
make use of transparent, detailed information about previous costs to help secure
the most efficient allocation of resources at future electoral events.
2.92 To assist in this process, we recommend that the UK Government publish as
soon as possible full cost details for the 2009 European Parliamentary elections and
2010 UK Parliamentary general elections, along the same lines as set out in this
report. The UK Government should also publish full cost details for all future polls,
including the Police and Crime Commissioner elections held on 15 November 2012,
funded along these lines.
2.93 We note that assumptions have been modified already in respect of the PCC
elections and weighted to take account of actual expenditure at previous national
polls rather than a broad average. Basing assumptions on evidence of past
expenditure is a far more realistic approach and should provide less variation of
expenditure against the MRA. As long as there is provision for COs and ROs to
make a case for further funds to be available to reflect new or special circumstances,
then this revised approach should provide more certainty as to expected
expenditure.
Counting Officer Fees
Payment
2.94 In a departure from the UK Government’s previous practice, the Commission
decided to separate the payment of the CO’s fee from the reimbursement of the
costs they incurred in delivering the poll.
2.95 For the referendum, the Commission paid COs 75% of their total fee
immediately following polling day, but did not pay the balance until each CO’s final
claim for reimbursement of their costs had been submitted and settled.
2.96 Evidence suggests, however, that we were not completely successful in
ensuring the separation of the CO’s fee from the reimbursement of the costs, with a
proportion of COs not splitting the payments in accordance with the new approach
and taking 100% of the fee after polling day from funds available to them from
unspent advances in respect of the general costs of the referendum. However, this
apportioning of the fee reflected accurately the levels of responsibility both before
and after polling day and the count, and we recommend that this split be adopted by
Accounting Officers in respect of CO/RO payments at future UK national elections
and referendums.
31
2.97 This system would also provide additional incentive for prompt claim
submission and would reinforce the responsibility of the CO/RO for the whole of the
management of the election or referendum, which includes accounting for
expenditure.
2.98 We recommend that Accounting Officers ensure clear separation between the
fees paid to Returning/Counting Officers for their services in conducting polls, and
the sums paid to reimburse the costs they incur in conducting polls.
2.99 The PVSC Act gave the Commission the power to reduce or withhold the fee of
any CO if they did not adequately perform the services for which the fee was paid.
This was the first time that the body responsible for administering the funding of a
poll had been given such a power, although some ROs have taken the decision not
to receive their fee either in part or in full, where there were difficulties at polls for
which they were responsible. We published the procedure we would follow in the
event of such issues arising, and made clear that we regarded COs’ duties as
including submitting their claims for reimbursement of their costs on time and in line
with the required procedures. Although in the event, we did not need to withhold
payment from any CO at the 2011 referendum, we consider this was a sensible
provision and we recommend that Governments should continue to allow Accounting
Officers to withhold Counting Officers’ fees in part or in full, if they do not perform
their duties satisfactorily (including the proper and timely submission of their claims
for reimbursement of costs). We support the inclusion of a provision to extend
similar provisions to cover the performance of Returning Officers at UK
Parliamentary general elections in the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
currently before the UK Parliament.
2.100 We recommend that payment of fees for services should be dependent upon
both satisfactory performance for the conduct of the poll by the responsible officers,
and the proper and timely submission of accounts (for more details on this point see
paragraphs 3.15–3.23 below).
Superannuation
2.101 Fees paid by Governments to Returning Officers at elections have historically
been pensionable. The drafting of the PVSC Act indicated the UK Government’s
assumption that this would be the case with fees paid to COs at the referendum.
However, in March 2011 it became clear that the regulations13 which govern
superannuation payments in these circumstances (and which are the responsibility
of the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) in England and
Wales, and of the Scottish Government in Scotland), did not in fact provide for
13
The Counting Officers, Regional Counting Officers, and Chief Counting Officers Accounts
(Parliamentary Voting System Referendum) Regulations 2011
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0011/116579/FI
NAL-ORDER-Counting-Officers-Regional-Counting-Officers-and-the-Chief-Counting-OfficersAccounts-Parliamentary-Voting-System-Referendum-Regu.pdf
32
superannuation payments to be made in relation to the fees of a CO at either the
UK-wide or the Wales referendums held in 2011 (as opposed to an RO at an
election).
2.102 When the issue was first raised, the Cabinet Office indicated that this was an
unintentional mismatch between the two pieces of legislation, and that steps would
be taken to amend the superannuation regulations as soon as possible in order to
provide for superannuation payments to be made in relation to COs’ fees. Nine
months later, in December 2011, CLG issued a consultation document about
proposed amendments to the superannuation regulations. Instead of proposing, as
expected, to enable superannuation payments in relation to COs’ fees, the document
instead invited views on whether or not those fees – and in addition, fees paid to
ROs for delivering the Police & Crime Commission elections in November 2012 –
should be pensionable. In July 2012 – 16 months after the issue had first arisen –
the UK Government updated the superannuation regulations, but made no changes
to the position in relation to COs’ fees. In August 2012 we and others were finally
informed that the UK Government had decided there was no case for making fees
for Counting Officer (or PCC election Returning Officer) duties pensionable. The
Scottish Public Pensions Agency (SPPA) confirmed in September 2012 that it would
similarly not be making any changes to the current regulations.
2.103 The Governments did not handle this episode well. Counting Officers at the
2011 referendums worked on the understanding (based on statements from
government officials) that their fees would be pensionable. The UK Government
took far too long to make clear its intention that this would not be the case. The
current situation is that, while fees paid to Counting Officers and to PCC election
Returning Officers are not pensionable, fees paid to Returning Officers at other
elections remain pensionable. If this situation is to change it should be made clear to
ROs at least six months before the relevant poll, rather than being a retrospective
change.
Insurance and indemnity
2.104 Like Returning Officers at elections, the Chief Counting Officer, Regional
Counting Officers and Counting Officers all had personal responsibility for the
conduct of the referendum, and were exposed as a result to a variety of potential
risks and legal challenges.
2.105 The Commission arranged insurance policies covering potential claims under
the headings of Professional Indemnity, Public and Employer Liability and Personal
Accident. The cost of setting up these policies was approximately £120,000.
2.106 While the insurance covered the great majority of risks, not all eventualities
were covered including if insurance policies did not pay out or in the unlikely event
that claims exceeded the insurance cover limits. Accordingly, the Commission (with
Cabinet Office and Treasury agreement) provided an indemnity to the Officers that
supplemented the insurance policies. The indemnity was limited to the extent that it
did not cover any costs which arose in whole or part from any deliberate or wilful
negligence by an Officer. Parliament was informed by formal minute of the
Commission’s contingent liability arising under the indemnity arrangement. The
33
indemnity remained in place until the end of the 13th month following the date of the
referendum poll. In the event there were no claims on the indemnity. Had there been
liability under the indemnity, provision for any payment would if necessary have been
sought through normal ‘Supply Procedure’.
2.107 Just one minor accident claim (for £158) was agreed under the insurance
policies. We have looked back at past polls, and it is clear that the level and value of
claims raised against commercial insurance policies in the past at national elections
has been very low – the highest being for just over £24,000 at the European
Parliamentary election in 2009.
2.108 We question the value of continuing to seek to negotiate commercial
insurance cover against these risks at future polls. As at the UK general election in
2010, and the Police & Crime Commissioner elections in 2012, Governments
should provide Returning/Counting Officers at future national polls with an
indemnity against claims (effectively agreeing to meet any proper claim from the
public purse ), instead of obtaining such cover through expensive commercial
insurance. However, the indemnity should not cover any costs which arise in whole
or part from any deliberate or wilful negligence by a Returning/Counting Officer.
Other spending at the referendum
Campaign spending
2.109 For UK-wide referendums, PPERA limits the amount that most campaigners
at a referendum can spend to £0.5 million, with larger limits for political campaigners
(according to their recent electoral support) and the largest limit of £5m for the
designated lead campaign groups.
2.110 The headline figures on campaign spending on each side of the referendum
question are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Headline figures on campaign spending at the referendum
Total
expenditure by
lead designated
campaigner
alone –£5
million limit
Expenditure by
other registered
campaigners
Total expenditure by
all campaigners
including lead
designated
campaigner
YES
2,100
70
2,210
NO
2,600
900
3,500
£000s
34
2.111 Full details and copies of the expenditure returns from the registered
campaigners at the PVS referendum are available on PEF Online 14, our searchable
online database, and are discussed in more detail in our February 2012 ‘May 2011
polls: Campaign spending’ report. Details of the donations and loans received by
registered campaigners are also available on PEF Online 15: ‘Yes’ campaigners
reported donations totalling £2.2 million (and loans totalling £50,000, all of which
were repaid); ‘No’ campaigners reported donations totalling £2.7 million.
Referendum campaign broadcasts costs
2.112 The costs of referendum (or indeed party political) campaign broadcasts have
not to our knowledge been estimated before. Such estimates are not
straightforward, as there was no lost revenue from advertising to the BBC, and the
commercial broadcasters reduced the length of their scheduled programmes rather
than replace adverts to accommodate the referendum broadcasts. The only costs to
broadcasters were staff time in getting the broadcast to air (e.g. making compliance
checks) and, although not inconsiderable, these are not easily quantifiable.
2.113 However, the commercial broadcasters were able to estimate approximately
how much three minutes of advertising at the time of the broadcasts would have cost
if they had to pay for the space. This provides a broad estimate of the value of the
broadcasts to campaigners, but it is worth noting that political advertising (as distinct
from party political or referendum campaign broadcasts on television and radio) is
banned in the UK, and it is not clear that campaigners would choose three-minute
adverts if they were able to buy commercial advertising.
2.114 The aggregate cost of the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaign broadcasts combined,
based on three minutes’ air time per broadcast, was estimated by the commercial TV
broadcasters at £420,000. It was not possible to collect information from all the radio
broadcasters but based on the information we received we estimate that the
equivalent figure for radio, based on one minute and thirty seconds per broadcast,
was around £30,000. For the reasons described above it is perhaps appropriate to
consider these figures as estimated ‘benefits’ to the designated referendum
campaigners than ‘costs’ to the broadcasters; and, for obvious reasons, the figures
exclude the BBC. They are therefore not included in our estimate of the total cost of
the referendum.
14
15
PEF online: https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/search/searchintro.aspx
PEF online: https://pefonline.electoralcommission.org.uk/search/searchintro.aspx
35
3 Administering the funding for
the referendum
Managing the reimbursement of costs
3.1 This was the first time that the Electoral Commission had responsibility for
administering claims submitted by Counting Officers (COs) and Regional Counting
Officers (RCOs) on this scale. The Commission’s previous involvement in fees and
charges administration had been in respect of the all-postal referendum on the
establishment of a regional assembly in the North East of England in 2004. The
North East referendum involved 23 claims and a total expenditure by COs of £2.3
million against a Maximum Recoverable Amount (MRA) of £2.75 million. By
comparison, the UK referendum in 2011 involved 451 claims and total expenditure of
£58.1 million out of a MRA of almost £80 million. Also, at the North East
referendum, the claims were more straightforward as a result of that referendum
being an all-postal ballot, which meant that there were no polling station costs to deal
with.
3.2 For the 2004 North East referendum the Commission set up a small in-house
team to process the claims. The scale of the 2011 referendum, the fact that
legislation was finalised so late, and our desire to ensure that the whole claims
process was concluded as quickly and efficiently as possible meant that we looked
at alternatives to an in-house solution. We decided to engage the Election Claims
Unit (ECU) to administer the processing of claims on our behalf, given their
experience of this in the past. Further information about this process is provided later
in this chapter. We also decided not to make significant changes to the approach
used previously by the UK Government, based on our understanding that it generally
worked well and the fact that there was little or no time to develop an alternative
approach.
3.3 We followed the approach used previously, which required Counting Officers to
provide detailed supporting evidence to back up their claims for reimbursement of
costs.
3.4 We published detailed guidance for COs, based on the format previously used
by the UK Government, and aimed to offer as much support as possible to help them
with the claims process.
3.5 84% of COs who responded to our post-referendum survey said that our
guidance set out clearly the process for claiming reimbursement of costs; 65% said
the guidance was easy to follow; 76% said that overall the advice and guidance they
received was useful; and 76% said they knew who to contact for additional advice
and guidance.
3.6 However, some COs noted areas where the guidance could have been clearer,
especially where there were departures from previous practice. Some COs said we
36
could have explained more clearly both the reasons and the process for paying
advances for costs, and for paying COs’ fees in two stages; and how to deal with the
costs of combined polls. As one CO in Wales said:
No real difficulties were encountered in understanding the Commission’s
guidance which was clear and straightforward. Our difficulties related to the
complexities of issues surrounding proper apportionment due to the fact that the
referendum was combined with the elections to the National Assembly for Wales
(NAW) and had to be completed on a constituency basis utilising two separate
set of guidance materials (Electoral Commission and NAW) which were not
always consistent in the advice given.
3.7 Our experience of the process has provided us with a number of lessons, and
we are clear that we would wish to make changes if we administer the process in
future.
3.8 The process that we inherited from the UK Government for reimbursing the
costs incurred at a national poll involves large numbers of very detailed claims.
Administering claims: the role of the Election Claims Unit
3.9 Our contract with ECU ran from June 2011 to October 2012 and incurred total
expenditure of just under £450,000. This provided for staff costs (both rechargeable
activity from existing permanent ECU staff and temporary agency appointments)
together with accommodation and support charges. The original contract was
designed to conclude in June 2012 but was extended with the agreement of both
parties to achieve practical completion of the work due to outstanding claims which
still needed to be processed.
3.10 The cost of running the process (mainly the cost of engaging ECU) can be
compared with the savings identified by them as a result of scrutinising claims. The
total value of initial claims received for CO expenses was £56.392m. The equivalent
final settlement amounts of £55.662m therefore involved a net reduction in claim
value of £0.730m (including two individual reductions of £136k and £117k that
represented respectively 52% and 47% of the value of those particular claims). The
cost of running the process does not reflect the cost to COs and Local Authority staff
of either the complex initial claim submission process or of responding to often
lengthy ECU enquiries. We have asked the Cabinet Office for the equivalent figures
in relation to their management of the claims process for the 2009 European
Parliamentary elections and 2010 UK Parliamentary general election so that we can
consider whether the 2011 referendum experience was unusual; the equivalent
figures were not available at the time this report was published, but the Cabinet
Office have undertaken to provide them.
3.11 Irrespective of the costs incurred and reductions identified in paragraphs 3.9–
3.10 above, the real challenge in terms of the ECU engagement and indeed of the
current payment process is whether the objectives (the provision of Accounting
Officer assurance over the use of public funds, the ease of use for claimants and the
collation of centralised and readily usable management information to support future
37
decision making) were fully met, and whether they were met at an acceptable cost.
These issues are explored further in the following sections.
Dealing with Claims
3.12 We wanted to ensure that the claims reached the ECU within the deadline we
had set (eight months after polling day); and that ECU could process and settle the
claims quickly.
3.13 We hoped to have settled all claims by the end of March 2012. In the event, we
did not do so until September 2012. Despite this, we did achieve quicker final
settlement rates than at previous national polls. As noted earlier, claims from the
2009 European Parliamentary election were still not settled within three years of the
date of the election, and claims from the UK Parliamentary general election (again
relating only to England and Wales) were not settled within two years of the date of
the election. All claims for these elections had, however, been settled at the time of
the publication of this report.
3.14 It took an average of 123 calendar days from receipt for a claim to be settled.
Within this, it took an average of 79 calendar days from the date the ECU started to
review the claim until it was settled. This figure includes time that a claim was
awaiting a response from the CO to queries raised.
Submitting Claims
3.15 The ECU’s experience at previous elections was that the majority of claims
would be received very close to the deadline. To help plan ECU’s workload, we
asked COs to give us an estimate of when they expected to submit their claims.
However, the estimates proved somewhat unreliable, with more claims arriving close
to the 5 January 2012 deadline than COs had forecast. The chart below shows
when claims were expected to arrive based on what COs had told us, and when they
actually arrived.
38
Chart 1: Expected vs Actual receipt of claims
3.16 Nevertheless, we managed to ensure that all the claims were with the ECU by
the deadline of 5 January 2012. We kept in close touch with COs throughout the
submission period, and in the final two weeks before the deadline, our staff ensured
that all COs who had not yet submitted their claims were aware of the deadline and
on track to submit on time. This approach was one we had used successfully at the
2004 North East referendum.
3.17 By contrast, almost 20% of claims in respect of Returning Officers’ costs at the
2010 UK Parliamentary general election were not submitted by the deadline of 6 May
2011, 12 months after polling day.
3.18 We asked COs for feedback on the claims process. 51% of those who
responded said they did not find it difficult to complete and submit their claims by the
5 January 2012 deadline, but 30% said they did find it difficult. The reasons they
gave included competing priorities and lack of time in the post-election period; four
COs mentioned a lack of dedicated resource to concentrate on compiling the
extensive information and evidence required to submit their claim.
3.19 However, 27% of respondents said they had found it fairly or very difficult to
complete their claim – the most commonly cited challenge was the process of
splitting costs between the various ‘combined’ polls.
3.20 We also looked at whether our eight-month deadline made it difficult to gather
the necessary supporting evidence for the claims in time to meet our deadline.
3.21 The ECU received 39 claims (8.6% of the total) by early September. There
were no obvious characteristics common to this first wave of COs – their authorities
ranged in size from London boroughs and metropolitan unitary authorities, to smaller
district councils.
3.22 At the other end of the range, 287 (64%) of the 451 claims arrived with the ECU
in the final five weeks of the submission period, and 99 (22% of the total) arrived on
39
or after 29 December 2011. When we looked at these claims more closely, it
appeared from the dates of documents, etc. that in a number of cases all the
material included in the claim had been available well before the claim was actually
submitted. In relation to the 25 claims that arrived last in the ECU:
•
Other than for venue hire, the evidence for payments to outside suppliers
(settled invoices) and payments to staff (payroll records) were available by July
2011 at the latest.
•
The evidence for venue hire payments was almost all available by September
2011 (there were one or two cases where the evidence took longer to become
available).
•
Evidence of internal recharges, from one local authority department to another,
were almost always the last documents to become available, with the majority of
these being dealt with in November or December 2011.
3.23 This analysis suggests that the eight-month deadline did not present difficulties
for COs in terms of their ability to collect and supply the evidence of their costs. If
the slow provision of local authority recharge information can be addressed, then it
appears that the deadline could be reduced to six months, which would mean the
reimbursement process could be speeded up further.
Processing claims
3.24 We asked the ECU to estimate the time they would take to process claims,
based on their experience of previous polls. The initial assumption from these
discussions was that each individual claim would take between two to three days to
process, which led us to estimate that we could complete processing by the end of
March 2012. This proved to be a significant under-estimate. Although allowance
must be made for the fact that processing time is not continuous, in 98% of cases it
took more than one month to settle claims from date of their initial receipt in the
ECU.
3.25 We have looked at the reasons for the much greater time taken to process
claims than expected.
3.26 It was notable that not one of the 451 claims submitted to the ECU was settled
without further exchanges with the CO. In some cases, the ECU asked for evidence
to support the claim, which the CO had not initially included. In other cases, the
ECU could not reconcile how the evidence that the CO had provided related to the
claim itself – especially where costs had been split between different ‘combined’
polls. In some cases the ECU found arithmetical errors in the claims themselves, or
found that a claim included costs that were not eligible for reimbursement, or in some
cases had failed to include costs that were eligible.
3.27 We were concerned that queries raised by the ECU were taking a long time to
resolve, as illustrated in Table 4 below.
40
Table 4: Days to settle from date of query
No. of days to settle
from date of query
0-30
30-60
60-90
90-120
120-150
150+
Total
No. of Claims
128
159
92
39
12
21
451
3.28 We found that the ECU were asking COs to respond to queries within 30 days
– in line with the approach they had previously agreed with the Cabinet Office. We
asked the ECU to reduce this deadline to 14 days, given that the majority of queries
simply asked COs to supply supporting evidence for aspects of their claims. We
also put in place a procedure whereby the Commission itself would contact COs who
did not respond to queries, but in practice most COs seem to have had no difficulty
in responding to queries on the shorter deadline.
3.29 Some issues arose which were more complex; the ECU referred those to the
Commission. Our target was to respond to such queries within three working days,
and we achieved this in 95% of cases. The longest time we took to resolve a
particularly complex query was 11 working days. We also received a number of
queries direct from COs, and resolved 97% of these within three working days.
3.30 Another factor which contributed to the time taken to settle claims overall was
the fact that in many cases, the claim showed that the CO had to reimburse some of
the funds originally advanced (see paragraph 2.81 above). Until the reimbursements
were made, we did not regard the claims as finally settled. The average time taken to
receive payments once an invoice for repayment of unused advance had been
raised was 29 days although two COs took in excess of 90 days to settle the amount
owed.
3.31 The time taken by the ECU to review claims (see paragraph 3.36 below) meant
that some COs were having to respond to queries while they were busy preparing for
the May 2012 polls.
3.32 In a small number of cases, where COs’ claims exceeded the MRA (see
paragraph 2.85–2.87 above), the claim could not be finally settled until Accounting
Officer and HM Treasury approval was given.
3.33 Given that so many queries arose on claims, we looked at how dealing with
those queries added further time to the process of settling claims. Of the 451 claims,
only nine did not have queries raised against them relating to individual items of
expenditure or completion of the claim form. However, these still had queries raised
based upon the high overall level of spend compared to assumed expenditure in
respect of certain categories of expenditure. These were generated where
expenditure against the assumption for an individual category of expenditure was
150% or more.
41
Table 5: Days taken to resolve queries
3.34 Although the ECU expected the majority of claims to arrive on or close to the
deadline (see Table 5 above), the last minute influx still caused an immediate
problem. Records are not available to accurately show the amount of time taken to
check and record the claims as they were received, but we were concerned at the
amount of elapsed time before claims were being moved to processing.
3.35 We soon became concerned that, for the range of reasons set out above, it was
taking too long to move a claim from submission to settlement.
3.36 An average of 52 calendar days elapsed between a claim being received in the
ECU and the ECU starting to review it. Even for claims received in September and
October 2011, before the final ‘spike’, it took the ECU an average of 31 calendar
days to begin reviewing them. One claim did not start to be reviewed until 160
calendar days after it was received in the ECU.
Table 6: Number of days taken to start processing claims in the ECU
(sample: 364 of the total 451 claims: information unavailable for the remainder)
No. of days
No. of claims
%
0-30
139
38%
30-60
78
21%
60-90
81
22%
90+
66
18%
Total
364
100%
42
3.37 It was not surprising in these circumstances that COs expressed frustration at
the long delay between submitting their claims and receiving any substantive
response from the ECU.
3.38 The ECU acknowledged claims as was their usual practice, and although we
ensured that they also gave COs an indication of their position in the queue, we were
unable to ensure that the ECU gave COs realistic estimates of when claims would
actually be processed: we had sought to require this procedure in our service level
agreement with ECU, but as they felt it was not possible to foresee the quality of
claims and hence the length of time required to process them they would not agree.
3.39 Although we understand that it may be difficult to give a reliable estimate of
when claims will finally be settled, we remain of the view that COs should get an
estimate of when they might be asked to respond to any queries that arise – this
would help them plan their resources.
3.40 We required the ECU to provide us with weekly reports on progress with
processing claims, and set targets on a weekly and monthly basis. However, we
were unable to get clear information from the ECU on how long it was taking to
process individual stages of each claim, or to arrive at an average end-to-end
completion time for each claim. We were unable to get systems in place within the
ECU that enabled them and us to track their casework more effectively.
3.41 Nevertheless, we were able to take some action in response to these
difficulties. We worked with ECU to introduce a new process whereby, when they
began to review claims, they carried out an initial screening to classify the claims
according to their likely complexity, so that straightforward claims could be ‘fast
tracked’ and dealt with by less experienced staff, and complex or obviously poorquality claims could be dealt with from the start by more experienced staff. This
change meant that some more straightforward claims were settled more quickly.
Recommendations for improving the system for
administering reimbursement of costs
3.42 In the paragraphs below we make a number of recommendations for improving
the system for administering the reimbursement of costs at future national polls.
3.43 Accounting Officers responsible for administering the reimbursement of costs at
future national polls should:
•
Consider carefully how to develop a more cost-effective process for obtaining
assurance that costs reimbursed have been properly incurred. In particular,
Accounting Officers should consider a more risk-based approach to validation
than has historically been taken; the current comprehensive, line-by-line process
(which the Commission used for the 2011 referendum) is expensive and timeconsuming given the overall number and value of claims which are in fact rejected.
For example, Accounting Officers should consider whether to focus the attention
of detailed checking on those claims which appear unusual, or where history
suggests there may be problems, together with some random detailed checks.
They should also consider whether any claim missing a receipt for an item of
43
expenditure – however small – should be rejected, or whether greater reliance
should be placed on the Returning/Counting Officer’s assurance that they have
satisfied themselves that the costs they are claiming have been properly incurred
in conducting the poll. The requirement to provide receipts in all cases proved a
barrier to quick settlement and we recommend that Accounting Officers limit the
requirement for in-depth evidence below certain amounts of expenditure.
•
Continue to set the deadline for the submission of claims for reimbursement at
eight months after polling day, but should examine how it could be brought down
to six months (particularly in conjunction with a more risk-based approach to
validation). Accounting Officers should also consider setting ‘staggered’
deadlines, with an earlier date for more straightforward claims, in order to avoid
large numbers of claims arriving on or near to a single deadline.
•
Ensure clear separation between the fees paid to Returning/Counting Officers
for their services in conducting polls, and the sums paid to reimburse the costs
they incur in conducting polls; and continue to pay 75% of the fee due
immediately following polling day, with the balance paid once each
Returning/Counting Officer’s final claim for reimbursement of their costs has
been submitted and settled. This approach provides an incentive to deal with
reimbursements quickly, as well as underlining ROs/COs’ responsibility for all
aspects of work to follow up the poll, as well as for conducting the poll itself.
•
Ensure that those responsible for day-to-day operational work on the
reimbursement process (whether the Election Claims Unit or any other team)
have in place robust processes and measures to have all claims submitted on
time; to deal with claims quickly as they are received; to respond quickly to
unexpected variations in workload; and to track and report the progress of cases
against agreed milestones. Accounting Officers should ensure that they have in
place a detailed contractual agreement with those responsible for day-to-day
operational work governing all aspects of the service they will provide, including:
-
•
The provision of adequate, clear and timely user guidance ahead of the event
Prompt registration and acknowledgement of claim receipts
Avoidance of the lengthy delays in starting the processing of claims for the
2011 referendum
Timely communication with Counting Officers, including updates on the
status of claims
Rigorous case management of each claim
Claim processing including query raising, recording and management
Regular management information and feedback to the Accounting Officer
Post completion review and analysis, including customer inputs, and the
development of learning points
Process enhancements reflected in future operations / guidance
Ensure that lessons learned from the Commission’s experience in managing
claims for the 2011 referendum are taken into account in:
-
preparing guidance and training for future polls
preparing procedures and tools to support the claims process (for example,
claims forms that are easier to use)
44
-
planning how to deal with claims: for example, the Commission agreed a
‘fast track’ procedure for the 2011 referendum which meant that more
straightforward claims were dealt with quicker.
A fundamental review is needed
3.44 We strongly recommend a more fundamental review of the levels of
administrative input, governance and audit built into current processes. There is an
inevitable tension between the cost of an effective control system and the resultant
benefits but we believe it timely to review, with HM Treasury and NAO colleagues,
the levels of inherent risk in the payment process and to consider whether for future
events streamlined or alternative models would be more appropriate and can be
developed without reducing the existing levels of control of public funds.
3.45 In respect of alternatives we note the current system of detailed budget setting
coupled with an extensive retrospective claim and audit process contrasts with that
used for the 2012 Mayoral referendums to be funded by the Department for
Communities and Local Government through the new burden principle. Under this
approach the funding required will be agreed with the Department and paid as a
Grant, leaving individual local authorities to control and report expenditure through
existing channels. This should significantly reduce the administrative burden of a
separately audited claims system.
Feedback from Counting Officers on the process,
including the Election Claims Unit
3.46 Overall, and despite our concerns about the time taken to settle the claims,
feedback from COs on their experiences of dealing with the ECU was generally
positive: 65% were very or fairly satisfied with the time taken to process the claim,
and only 27% dissatisfied. This may, of course, reflect their expectations based on
their experience of the reimbursement process at past polls.
3.47 54% of COs agreed that the process for paying fees in staged payments of
75% after the poll and the remaining 25% on settlement of accounts was clear; 38%
disagreed.
3.48 Some COs reported that some ECU staff did not have sufficient knowledge or
understanding of the guidance (and its application) to support them throughout the
process.
3.49 Others expressed dissatisfaction with the correspondence they had with the
ECU (either lack of/delay on, and/or tone of correspondence).
3.50 A number of respondents said that, based on past experience, the order in
which claims were processed did not incentivise early submission. Confusion as to
what information or evidence ECU required to substantiate the claim also emerged in
a number of responses. Some COs suggested that the format for submitting claims
(and the accompanying spreadsheets) could be reviewed to help simplify the
process.
45
4 Improving the funding model
Administration of fees and charges
4.1 In the previous two chapters we have made a number of recommendations to
improve the framework for reimbursement and the administering of funding. In this
chapter, we recommend a number of other changes to the existing model for the
administration of fees and charges to improve economy, efficiency and
effectiveness. These should be addressed as part of the Government wider review of
the current funding framework.
4.2 We are, however, pleased that the Government has reviewed assumptions for
the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections in November 2012 to reflect the
actual expenditure incurred at the 2009 European Parliamentary elections and 2010
UK Parliamentary general election and our preliminary feedback prior to this report
on expenditure at the referendum, and we hope that this improves the accuracy of
predicted expenditure.
4.3 We recommend that the funding model used for future national polls should be
based on the evidence of past expenditure rather than average expenditure and
consideration given to the appropriate level of advance payments.
Changes made for PCC elections
4.4 We welcome the fact that a number of changes were made by Government
both in the approach taken and the guidance provided in respect of the PCC
elections in November 2012 both in response to lessons learned and as a result of
our preliminary feedback on our experience of the referendum fees and charges
process. However, the issuing of the guidance for the PCC elections fees and
charges four working days before the election was unsatisfactory. In addition to the
change in the basis of assumptions mentioned above these changes included the
following:
•
The claim deadline has been set at eight months (12 July 2013) and there is a
statement of intent to have finished processing claims by 31 December 2013 (5
½ months after the deadline for submission). We welcome this change to reflect
the deadline imposed at the referendum, and welcome the stated intent to
complete processing within a set period. We believe that with changes to the
processing model that we recommend, processing deadlines could be further
reduced.
•
There is additional emphasis in the guidance on the personal responsibility of the
Local Returning Officer (LRO), including all queries raised by ECU now being
personally addressed to LRO as a matter of course. This was not previously
standard practice for ECU in raising queries as they were originally addressed to
electoral services managers, but is an approach we also changed during the
referendum claims process to emphasise Counting Officer (CO) responsibility.
46
•
Payments for LRO and Police Area Returning Officers (PARO) fees for their
services are instructed to be made as the last payment of the election and
immediately prior to submission of the claim. Although the guidance emphasises
that it should be the last payment to be made, this provides little guarantee that it
will not be paid earlier. 16 This is a change from the model employed at the
referendum, which staggered payments and separated expenses and fees for
CO services.
•
In respect of the processing approach there is clarification that ECU will deal with
claims in receipt order, and acknowledged there might be a delay when many
claims are received at the same time. ECU state that they will acknowledge each
claim, and provide an estimate of how long it will take to process based upon the
number received and outstanding at the time. We do not believe that this is
much of a departure from previous practice and does not fully address the
concerns we have expressed in the lack of firm information being provided to
COs/ROs.
•
Payroll evidence requirements are spelt out more carefully, with clarification that
spreadsheets will be acceptable provided that additional criteria are met if this is
done e.g. they must list individuals, amounts, payment reference numbers and
be in electronic format, and must include a declaration from the LRO. This will
hopefully avoid a very large number of queries being raised against payroll
evidence submissions.
•
The claim forms have been adapted so that any ‘overspend’ against an assumed
amount within a head of expenditure automatically highlighted to show that it
must have an accompanying explanation and justification. This is a simple, but
significant, change that we believe will have a positive impact on the
completeness and transparency of claims submitted.
•
There is a requirement to provide further detail of all payments where an
individual receives more than £2500 across all heads of expenditure. This seeks
to address concerns about transparency and the levels of fees being paid to
some core electoral staff and is an approach we welcome.
•
Payment for a bookkeeper is now permitted within the Maximum Recoverable
Amount (MRA), although there is not a separate specific allowance for this. This
should allow LROs to employ expert assistance to ensure that the claims
submitted are complete and of a suitable high quality and is a change of
approach that we endorse.
•
More clarification and explanation is provided throughout the guidance on areas
where queries were raised on more particular aspects of expenditure during the
referendum claims process. These include:
16
In a subsequent letter to LROs in November 2012 the Home Office responded to some concerns
raised about the principle of paying LRO fees as a single final payment and stated that, while they
considered it right to have an incentive for the efficient completion of the accounts, on this occasion
they would not question a returning officer who pays up to 75% of their fee earlier.
47
•
4.5
specific reference for prior approval being required for incurring costs
relating to the use of consultants
clarity is provided on what is and isn’t acceptable as costs for the complete
outsourcing of postal voting and how costs should be itemised on the claim
for greater transparency
additional clarification that core costs of staff are not reclaimable, and remind
local authorities of their obligation to put staff at the disposal of the LRO.
More detail is given on costs that should be excluded from claims, based upon
recent precedent. However, the guidance for the PCC elections was published
less than one week before polling day. The lateness of the guidance regrettably
means that some of these costs might well have been incurred already which
could cause difficulties for some LROs.
While we welcome these changes, we believe that they do not go far enough in
addressing the problems encountered in processing claims. The areas below
highlight those further changes we would like to see implemented
Moving the deadline for submission of accounts
4.6 The benefits of the early settlement of claims are clear and it is important to
ensure that accounts are settled in a timely manner. Any deadline set by Accounting
Officers should avoid final accounting being carried out in the midst of election
teams’ preparations for scheduled polls. For a May or June poll, a deadline
coinciding with the beginning of the following calendar year fits the eight month
deadline we introduced for the referendum and would fit well to leave sufficient
space for planning for subsequent May or June polls. For polls held later in the year
the deadline should be set having regard to the polls scheduled for the following
year.
Staggered submissions
4.7 The processing of claims would be improved by Accounting Officers
introducing additional staggered deadlines for submission, based upon factors such
as value of claims and past submission performance. This would ensure that claims
could be dealt with more efficiently by smoothing out processing peaks and troughs.
As a general rule, the smaller the value of a claim, the less volume there will be in
terms of evidence required to support the claim and the less complex the claim will
be to complete. So, for example, a claim with a maximum recoverable amount of
less than £100K could be required to be submitted within four months rather than the
maximum of eight months. At the referendum that criteria would have applied to 111
of the 451 claims.
Fast tracking claims
4.8 We introduced a fast track process early to identify claims that contained
substantial errors or omissions and to ensure these were passed to experienced
staff to deal with. Our experience of fast tracking showed that it worked well, and the
evidence suggests this initial screening of claims made improvements to both the
48
efficiency and effectiveness of the process. We recommend that Accounting
Officers should establish a similar approach at the start of the process to ensure that
resources are assigned proportionately to the nature of the claims received.
Selected detailed scrutiny of claims
4.9 The detailed scrutiny of every single claim makes processing a laborious and
time consuming process. A more targeted approach to detailed scrutiny should be
adopted, with attention being paid for example to COs/ROs whose claims had been
identified as problematic at previous elections, and a random selection of claims
being chosen for closer scrutiny. Risks can be mitigated by reinforcing the existing
declarations of expenditure by COs/ROs to allow for additional local authority sign off
of claims, for example by the Chief Financial Officer of the authority.
Reviewing current guidance and support for Counting
Officers
4.10 While 65% of COs who responded to our survey agreed that the Commission’s
guidance was easy to follow, there is now an opportunity (unless there is a radical
change) to review to the existing guidance to identify where simplifications can be
made, or if there is a need for further support or training.
4.11 There are also some simple practical changes that should be made to the
claim forms: for example, automatic highlighting of expenditure where costs
exceeded the assumed amount could be linked to a box of explanatory notes that
would need to be completed; and a checklist to accompany the claim form could be
used as a prompt to check that all corresponding invoices and receipts had been
provided and checked, and that payroll information was in the correct format.
Processing claims – efficient and effective case
management
4.12 The need for the Commission to review and enhance monitoring and reporting
tools throughout the process was a response in part due to lack of established
detailed management reporting processes in place at the Election Claims Unit.
Having developed effective management tools it would be a missed opportunity if
they were not utilised by the responsible authority at future polls and we hope that
Government will see the benefits of having clear monitoring in place.
4.13 Closer reporting on the progress of processing claims, and the ability to target
resource and effort at particular areas throughout the process enabled the
Commission to achieve a quicker overall final settlement than achieved at previous
national polls.
4.14 In order to further support and strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of
future processing there should be a more detailed and contractual agreement
governing timing and quality standards for performance, reporting and
communications for any unit responsible for the processing of claims.
49
4.15 Applying the principles of an effective case management system processes
should include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The provision of adequate, clear and timely user guidance ahead of the event
Prompt registration and acknowledgement of claim receipts
Timely communication with COs, including updates on the status of claims
Initial review, resource planning and allocation including an estimated completion
date
Claim processing including query raising, recording and management
Regular management information and client feedback
Post completion review and analysis, including customer inputs, and the
development of learning points
Process enhancements reflected in future operations/guidance
4.16 For future events the establishment of more detailed case management
standards and reporting mechanisms must be reflected as part of the planning stage
of any processing proposals. Where such work is to be sub-contracted these
requirements should form part of the initial service contract.
Checking of claims and supporting documentation
4.17 The above measures will help to ensure that the whole process is more
accurate, simpler and more proportionate. In return for that Counting Officers
should check more carefully claims and supporting documentation prior to
submission.
50
Appendix A: Detailed breakdown of expenditure on
the referendum by each Counting Officer and
Regional Counting Officer
Fees and charges expenditure by Regional Counting Officer
Fees
Regional Counting Officer
Charges
Count
Charges
Other
Sub-total
Charges
Fees and Charges
Total
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Scotland
12,000
12,000
26,928
0
35,064
26,928
47,064
38,928
Wales
12,000
12,000
7,269
23,168
40,080
30,436
52,080
42,436
East Midlands
12,000
12,000
16,692
12,563
40,080
29,255
52,080
41,255
East of England
12,000
12,000
4,385
25,330
44,469
29,715
56,469
41,715
London
12,000
12,000
6,512
9,652
35,691
16,165
47,691
28,165
North East
12,000
12,000
13,322
1,111
22,524
14,433
34,524
26,433
North West
12,000
12,000
31,157
29,817
39,453
60,974
51,453
72,974
South East
12,000
12,000
5,300
24,082
57,009
29,382
69,009
41,382
South West
12,000
12,000
5,431
9,993
38,199
15,424
50,199
27,424
West Midlands
12,000
12,000
1,979
16,797
33,810
18,776
45,810
30,776
Yorkshire and the Humber
12,000
12,000
11,910
4,542
28,167
16,451
40,167
28,451
132,000
132,000
130,884
157,055
414,546
287,940
546,546
419,940
Expenditure totals
51
Fees and charges expenditure by Counting Officer
Fees
Counting Officer
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Aberdeen Central
2,950
2,950
38,932
18,320
6,069
25,616
2,560
101,266
91,498
104,216
94,447
Aberdeen Donside
Aberdeen South and North
Kincardine
2,935
2,935
39,853
18,736
6,069
26,902
2,560
98,197
94,120
101,132
97,055
2,867
2,867
37,692
20,193
6,069
27,249
2,135
97,275
93,338
100,142
96,205
Aberdeenshire East
2,891
2,891
38,412
12,588
5,995
19,763
3,261
106,349
80,019
109,240
82,910
Aberdeenshire West
2,804
2,804
43,659
12,289
5,995
19,161
3,400
106,624
84,505
109,428
87,310
Airdrie and Shotts
2,750
2,750
45,508
8,552
7,189
14,848
10,275
86,763
86,372
89,513
89,122
Almond Valley
3,175
3,175
52,360
9,182
6,201
18,844
1,723
105,425
88,311
108,600
91,486
Angus North and Mearns
2,750
2,750
43,352
22,082
6,349
10,973
2,570
96,158
85,326
98,908
88,076
Angus South
2,872
2,872
42,552
21,582
7,336
10,881
1,109
104,355
83,458
107,227
86,331
Argyll and Bute
2,750
2,750
58,004
12,803
5,735
21,164
6,566
116,649
104,273
119,399
107,023
Ayr
3,237
3,237
47,160
16,181
7,275
22,139
6,942
113,084
99,696
116,321
102,933
Banffshire and Buchan Coast
2,967
2,967
40,867
13,018
5,995
20,303
3,836
104,599
84,020
107,566
86,987
Caithness, Sutherland and Ross
Carrick, Cumnock and Doon
Valley
Clackmannanshire and
Dunblane
2,943
2,943
47,629
2,848
6,523
7,086
16,618
107,497
80,706
110,440
83,649
3,149
3,149
38,562
10,269
6,607
12,436
4,687
111,976
72,561
115,125
75,710
2,750
2,750
34,534
17,340
5,453
6,532
16,331
96,967
80,190
99,717
82,940
Clydebank and Milngavie
2,819
2,819
39,433
9,329
6,371
5,659
9,077
96,885
69,868
99,704
72,687
Clydesdale
2,986
2,986
44,586
8,414
7,514
14,771
7,953
100,418
83,238
103,404
86,224
Coatbridge and Chryston
2,750
2,750
43,323
8,120
6,767
14,545
8,788
81,676
81,543
84,426
84,293
Cowdenbeath
2,837
2,837
34,591
1,336
4,695
16,700
5,260
89,710
62,583
92,547
65,419
Cumbernauld and Kilsyth
2,750
2,750
41,277
7,816
6,469
14,190
6,270
78,065
76,021
80,815
78,771
Cunninghame North
2,968
2,968
31,912
11,830
6,277
14,083
8,203
98,935
72,305
101,903
75,273
Scotland
52
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Cunninghame South
2,750
2,750
29,175
11,830
5,900
12,755
8,179
85,827
67,839
88,577
70,589
Dumbarton
2,868
2,868
41,596
9,566
6,371
5,539
8,914
104,455
71,986
107,323
74,854
Dumfriesshire
3,124
3,124
47,916
12,432
5,612
18,747
6,936
116,081
91,643
119,205
94,766
Dundee City East
2,830
2,830
31,360
11,833
5,821
21,044
4,883
89,596
74,941
92,426
77,772
Dundee City West
2,750
2,750
31,211
11,833
5,821
21,044
4,883
87,106
74,792
89,856
77,542
Dunfermline
2,866
2,866
37,980
1,336
4,695
16,063
5,260
98,410
65,334
101,276
68,200
East Kilbride
3,097
3,097
38,272
8,414
7,514
14,650
7,930
91,964
76,780
95,061
79,877
East Lothian
2,911
2,911
34,937
16,250
5,626
10,759
5,294
102,636
72,866
105,547
75,777
Eastwood
2,750
2,750
47,974
17,381
5,337
13,202
4,037
90,881
87,931
93,631
90,681
Edinburgh Central
2,984
2,984
34,882
19,957
1,411
32,346
19,158
94,731
107,754
97,715
110,738
Edinburgh Eastern
3,053
3,053
38,012
20,183
1,406
33,031
19,527
89,375
112,159
92,428
115,213
Edinburgh Northern and Leith
2,996
2,996
36,629
20,537
1,502
33,186
20,033
101,028
111,887
104,024
114,883
Edinburgh Pentlands
2,836
2,836
34,211
19,852
1,361
32,162
18,991
100,299
106,577
103,135
109,413
Edinburgh Southern
2,936
2,936
35,303
20,088
1,435
32,555
19,370
97,803
108,751
100,739
111,687
Edinburgh Western
Ettrick, Roxburgh and
Berwickshire
3,022
3,022
39,732
20,243
1,411
32,812
19,623
102,629
113,820
105,651
116,842
2,862
2,862
45,113
8,862
5,968
15,667
7,076
109,678
82,687
112,540
85,548
Falkirk East
3,042
3,042
31,999
4,792
5,852
10,762
6,628
86,271
60,033
89,313
63,075
Falkirk West
2,968
2,968
31,849
4,642
5,875
10,762
6,628
86,835
59,756
89,803
62,724
Galloway and West Dumfries
2,997
2,997
52,144
12,432
5,612
18,747
6,936
116,277
95,871
119,274
98,868
Glasgow Anniesland
2,827
2,827
38,049
11,437
5,829
29,905
4,018
83,479
89,238
86,306
92,065
Glasgow Cathcart
3,050
3,050
40,720
11,157
6,165
30,136
4,202
86,774
92,380
89,824
95,430
Glasgow Kelvin
Glasgow Maryhill and
Springburn
3,083
3,083
37,018
10,182
6,415
31,194
4,340
82,366
89,149
85,449
92,232
2,867
2,867
39,985
10,779
5,944
30,372
3,031
81,823
90,112
84,690
92,979
Glasgow Pollok
2,979
2,979
38,362
10,886
6,145
30,217
3,692
81,061
89,302
84,040
92,281
Glasgow Provan
2,750
2,750
36,203
10,414
5,798
29,858
3,601
77,976
85,873
80,726
88,623
Glasgow Shettleston
2,752
2,752
39,288
9,733
5,864
29,636
3,137
79,348
87,658
82,100
90,410
53
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Glasgow Southside
2,750
2,750
30,919
9,950
5,476
28,981
3,474
72,726
78,799
75,476
81,549
Greenock and Inverclyde
Hamilton, Larkhall and
Stonehouse
2,978
2,978
34,544
15,144
5,903
20,152
4,029
98,411
79,772
101,389
82,750
3,031
3,031
37,287
8,414
7,514
14,990
7,930
91,164
76,135
94,195
79,167
Inverness and Nairn
3,256
3,256
39,918
2,810
6,890
6,695
14,987
121,294
71,300
124,550
74,556
Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley
3,228
3,228
35,910
10,269
7,268
10,813
3,968
104,294
68,229
107,522
71,457
Kirkcaldy
3,149
3,149
45,322
1,336
4,695
13,735
5,260
99,747
70,348
102,896
73,497
Linlithgow
3,320
3,320
56,904
9,182
6,266
18,844
1,723
111,215
92,920
114,535
96,239
Mid Fife and Glenrothes
Midlothian North and
Musselburgh
Midlothian South, Tweeddale,
and Lauderdale
2,841
2,841
44,081
1,336
4,695
15,703
5,262
91,188
71,077
94,029
73,918
3,010
3,010
43,229
8,700
5,748
15,102
13,255
91,465
86,033
94,475
89,043
3,035
3,035
38,896
8,862
6,832
15,942
6,780
105,968
77,313
109,003
80,348
Moray
2,966
2,966
27,793
10,149
6,223
7,793
5,365
100,097
57,324
103,063
60,289
Motherwell and Wishaw
2,889
2,889
44,561
8,410
7,051
14,822
9,233
85,076
84,076
87,965
86,965
Na h-Eileanan an Iar
2,750
2,750
23,389
5,561
2,338
6,144
2,858
48,621
40,291
51,371
43,041
North East Fife
3,137
3,137
49,313
1,336
4,695
10,420
6,966
103,075
72,730
106,212
75,868
Orkney
2,750
2,750
10,706
2,623
4,330
4,406
3,197
29,658
25,263
32,408
28,013
Paisley
2,750
2,750
40,116
11,439
5,107
15,793
3,654
93,153
76,109
95,903
78,859
Perthshire North
Perthshire South and Kinrossshire
2,765
2,765
38,468
17,366
7,402
14,233
9,547
109,532
87,017
112,297
89,781
2,952
2,952
34,540
14,799
7,472
16,256
9,395
113,576
82,461
116,528
85,413
Renfrewshire North and West
2,750
2,750
39,695
11,439
5,107
15,793
3,654
88,691
75,688
91,441
78,438
Renfrewshire South
2,750
2,750
40,467
11,439
5,107
15,793
3,654
87,184
76,461
89,934
79,211
Rutherglen
3,084
3,084
39,153
8,414
7,514
14,674
7,745
77,500
77,500
80,584
80,584
Shetland
2,750
2,750
14,886
2,515
4,587
2,268
1,690
36,147
25,946
38,897
28,696
Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch
2,985
2,985
55,303
2,481
6,890
6,944
16,555
110,655
88,174
113,640
91,158
Stirling
2,774
2,774
36,956
17,493
5,766
12,669
6,341
100,769
79,226
103,543
82,000
Strathkelvin and Bearsden
3,149
3,149
40,083
9,603
7,987
17,505
2,103
97,479
77,280
100,628
80,429
54
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Uddingston and Bellshill
2,980
2,980
44,602
8,499
7,137
14,871
9,722
86,141
84,831
89,121
87,811
213,629
213,629
2,861,160
809,447
415,651
1,292,336
524,779
6,878,408
5,903,372
7,092,037
6,117,002
2,750
2,751
30,620
11,056
5,341
10,258
4,060
97,006
61,335
99,756
64,085
Sub-total Scotland
Wales
Aberavon
Aberconwy
2,750
2,750
23,098
11,304
5,304
7,901
5,411
66,707
53,019
69,457
55,769
Alyn and Deeside
3,185
3,185
26,247
12,346
6,927
7,451
7,945
84,503
60,916
87,688
64,101
Arfon
2,750
2,750
22,441
4,870
4,496
6,426
2,718
67,745
40,950
70,495
43,700
Blaenau Gwent
2,768
2,768
35,453
11,586
6,869
5,305
4,385
102,773
63,598
105,541
66,366
Brecon and Radnorshire
2,803
2,803
37,697
7,433
5,996
8,451
3,316
109,695
62,893
112,498
65,696
Bridgend
3,080
3,080
22,777
13,987
6,914
8,684
7,152
86,847
59,514
89,927
62,594
Caerphilly
3,233
3,233
23,398
10,420
12,257
7,546
4,403
101,890
58,026
105,123
61,259
Cardiff Central
3,157
3,157
30,563
8,184
10,178
10,583
13,835
88,080
73,344
91,237
76,501
Cardiff North
3,412
3,412
34,472
10,175
10,346
11,474
14,434
109,060
80,901
112,472
84,313
Cardiff South and Penarth
3,835
3,835
39,377
9,199
10,699
10,754
14,593
122,275
84,622
126,110
88,457
Cardiff West
3,267
3,267
33,040
9,752
9,260
10,419
13,985
104,499
76,456
107,766
79,723
Carmarthen East & Dinefwr
Carmarthen W & S
Pembrokeshire
2,750
2,750
37,290
16,621
6,188
9,240
3,905
109,237
73,244
111,987
75,994
3,046
3,046
38,236
12,488
7,312
10,963
5,600
104,212
74,599
107,258
77,645
Ceredigion
3,066
3,066
32,347
7,167
6,700
4,109
14,033
95,982
64,357
99,048
67,423
Clwyd South
2,814
2,814
28,946
9,785
6,061
7,376
5,474
95,929
57,641
98,743
60,455
Clwyd West
3,027
3,027
33,020
13,995
6,483
9,657
6,545
95,394
69,700
98,421
72,727
Cynon Valley
2,750
2,750
22,618
9,615
9,160
4,224
3,767
84,435
49,384
87,185
52,134
Delyn
2,799
2,799
29,089
11,575
5,488
7,126
8,010
84,873
61,287
87,672
64,087
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
2,750
2,750
33,303
4,817
4,828
6,827
3,007
92,620
52,782
95,370
55,532
Gower
3,234
3,234
32,724
6,857
5,713
6,695
2,145
98,938
54,134
102,172
57,368
Islwyn
2,856
2,856
23,604
8,745
9,299
7,515
3,951
92,956
53,114
95,812
55,970
55
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Llanelli
2,918
2,918
33,397
16,810
6,188
8,456
3,628
102,107
68,478
105,025
71,396
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney
2,750
2,750
36,994
7,701
5,915
2,640
1,768
98,780
55,017
101,530
57,767
Monmouth
3,377
3,377
41,984
14,038
7,123
11,384
8,772
116,720
83,301
120,097
86,678
Montgomeryshire
2,750
2,750
26,681
6,746
5,577
7,056
3,541
85,733
49,602
88,483
52,352
Neath
3,015
3,015
34,141
13,380
6,123
10,148
5,608
109,660
69,400
112,675
72,415
Newport East
2,829
2,829
29,306
12,640
7,645
7,148
3,458
83,591
60,197
86,420
63,025
Newport West
3,204
3,204
31,877
11,227
10,319
7,158
3,458
99,084
64,039
102,288
67,243
Ogmore
2,921
2,921
25,412
12,921
6,508
8,634
7,152
88,146
60,628
91,067
63,548
Pontypridd
3,037
3,037
25,909
9,748
10,512
4,065
3,865
94,857
54,099
97,894
57,136
Preseli Pembrokeshire
2,949
2,949
35,933
12,266
7,335
11,248
5,594
102,584
72,375
105,533
75,325
Rhondda
2,750
2,750
25,189
9,868
11,258
2,439
3,828
91,244
52,583
93,994
55,333
Swansea East
3,128
3,128
32,326
6,417
5,583
6,470
2,145
92,289
52,941
95,417
56,069
Swansea West
3,188
3,188
32,997
7,019
5,341
6,520
2,145
91,719
54,022
94,907
57,210
Torfaen
3,219
3,219
31,955
8,048
6,680
6,410
2,524
116,445
55,617
119,664
58,836
Vale of Clwyd
2,924
2,924
30,718
14,974
6,465
7,525
4,726
81,055
64,408
83,979
67,332
Vale of Glamorgan
3,680
3,680
53,513
13,944
7,778
14,903
4,912
124,177
95,050
127,857
98,730
Wrexham
2,750
2,750
21,311
9,082
5,986
6,668
5,473
79,227
48,519
81,977
51,269
Ynys Mon
2,750
2,750
35,796
11,018
5,430
5,851
9,171
88,663
67,267
91,413
70,017
120,221
120,222
1,255,799
419,823
289,585
313,709
234,443
3,841,737
2,513,359
3,961,958
2,633,581
0
0
1,008,525
23,205
76,395
129,815
118,935
2,500,000
1,356,875
2,500,000
1,356,875
Babergh
3,652
3,652
40,646
7,547
9,294
6,005
1,828
116,543
65,320
120,195
68,972
Basildon
6,698
6,698
55,137
17,865
16,392
12,278
8,576
169,893
110,248
176,591
116,946
Sub-total Wales
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland
England
East of England region
56
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Bedford
6,072
6,072
69,118
33,966
16,078
16,399
21,424
179,287
156,984
185,359
163,056
Braintree
5,579
5,579
50,469
20,442
11,628
11,439
12,900
174,965
106,879
180,544
112,458
Breckland
5,070
5,070
66,506
19,573
10,061
12,675
15,959
147,886
124,775
152,956
129,845
Brentwood
2,883
2,883
34,526
11,508
7,086
14,599
3,172
93,274
70,891
96,157
73,774
Broadland
5,027
5,027
45,777
12,667
8,367
15,507
11,084
131,787
93,401
136,814
98,428
Broxbourne
3,610
3,610
24,433
13,076
9,189
6,558
2,904
100,977
56,161
104,587
59,771
Cambridge
4,607
4,607
28,167
13,854
7,126
6,294
730
108,185
56,171
112,792
60,778
Castle Point
3,509
3,509
15,039
9,952
10,235
4,667
6,198
82,154
46,092
85,663
49,601
Central Bedfordshire
10,075
10,075
97,819
38,936
20,877
16,196
17,909
295,588
191,737
305,663
201,811
Chelmsford
6,670
6,670
50,652
14,954
15,545
11,223
9,190
159,318
101,563
165,988
108,234
Colchester
6,589
6,589
62,775
23,325
14,497
20,436
5,633
190,804
126,666
197,393
133,255
Dacorum
5,614
5,614
41,315
20,087
13,270
13,090
13,843
139,598
101,605
145,212
107,219
East Cambridgeshire
3,238
3,238
30,882
10,477
8,729
7,161
8,653
95,182
65,902
98,420
69,140
East Hertfordshire
5,399
5,399
49,440
22,111
13,648
9,086
11,119
169,190
105,405
174,589
110,803
Epping Forest
5,065
5,065
70,416
20,523
25,764
14,484
11,421
176,566
142,607
181,631
147,672
Fenland
3,764
3,764
34,818
21,421
15,042
10,697
8,793
96,062
90,771
99,826
94,535
Forest Heath
2,750
2,750
24,666
7,852
5,386
4,109
2,250
57,165
44,262
59,915
47,012
Great Yarmouth
3,754
3,754
25,614
18,671
6,795
5,069
6,061
98,997
62,209
102,751
65,964
Harlow
3,132
3,132
17,333
6,873
5,375
6,137
5,568
69,067
41,286
72,199
44,417
Hertsmere
3,795
3,795
37,088
28,084
12,313
8,872
4,624
118,012
90,981
121,807
94,776
Huntingdonshire
6,422
6,421
76,185
22,471
13,898
9,482
12,985
194,657
135,021
201,079
141,442
Ipswich
5,012
5,012
46,358
32,249
7,362
10,121
11,091
141,111
107,181
146,123
112,193
King's Lynn and West Norfolk
6,029
6,029
42,379
16,391
12,317
7,240
9,793
176,446
88,120
182,475
94,149
Luton
7,210
7,210
53,200
23,661
13,265
19,515
25,558
169,927
135,199
177,137
142,409
Maldon
2,750
2,750
20,050
5,642
6,932
6,446
1,770
79,046
40,839
81,796
43,589
Mid Suffolk
3,885
3,885
39,950
7,716
7,707
4,968
11,574
129,700
71,915
133,585
75,800
57
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
North Hertfordshire
5,069
5,069
49,110
31,359
12,204
9,720
7,194
164,294
109,586
169,363
114,655
North Norfolk
4,273
4,273
57,067
16,925
10,332
9,527
6,198
152,054
100,048
156,327
104,321
Norwich
5,137
5,137
41,677
19,900
10,269
5,976
2,666
149,106
80,488
154,243
85,625
Peterborough
6,272
6,272
69,317
28,381
26,246
42,533
4,902
175,973
171,380
182,245
177,652
Rochford
3,384
3,384
32,824
15,629
7,419
7,124
3,727
96,284
66,724
99,668
70,108
South Cambridgeshire
5,596
5,596
75,023
19,473
15,249
7,567
8,702
197,536
126,014
203,132
131,610
South Norfolk
4,929
4,929
61,903
23,857
14,241
7,344
3,261
162,177
110,605
167,106
115,534
Southend-on-Sea
6,635
6,635
58,883
16,784
10,790
18,901
16,043
171,426
121,402
178,061
128,037
St Albans
5,341
5,341
32,084
15,899
16,923
11,682
4,368
144,710
80,955
150,051
86,296
St. Edmundsbury
4,149
4,149
55,601
17,138
9,128
4,708
10,022
138,095
96,597
142,244
100,746
Stevenage
3,124
3,124
17,607
18,473
6,698
2,757
11,291
108,846
56,826
111,970
59,950
Suffolk Coastal
5,016
5,016
48,072
19,137
10,016
6,877
8,241
151,895
92,343
156,911
97,359
Tendring
5,665
5,665
47,506
23,941
12,590
8,769
7,527
160,147
100,332
165,812
105,997
Three Rivers
3,465
3,465
32,199
13,935
5,508
4,889
3,368
115,947
59,899
119,412
63,364
Thurrock
5,822
5,822
52,103
24,083
15,589
15,401
7,387
163,909
114,564
169,731
120,386
Uttlesford
3,075
3,075
36,817
13,476
6,222
9,008
8,965
103,000
74,488
106,075
77,563
Watford
3,411
3,411
26,464
15,445
7,724
8,276
9,392
101,176
67,300
104,587
70,711
Waveney
4,756
4,756
39,993
15,632
9,677
6,209
5,977
134,181
77,487
138,937
82,243
Welwyn Hatfield
4,039
4,039
26,127
18,466
6,668
5,216
5,911
107,648
62,389
111,687
66,427
227,018
227,018
2,111,134
869,825
537,670
483,238
397,749
6,559,791
4,399,615
6,786,809
4,626,633
Amber Valley
5,032
5,032
44,755
23,605
23,454
11,807
12,089
170,451
115,711
175,483
120,743
Ashfield
4,731
4,731
51,222
21,083
9,279
6,020
4,909
132,546
92,514
137,277
97,245
Sub-total East of England
East Midlands region
Bassetlaw
4,451
4,451
64,395
26,328
12,151
7,909
6,099
165,139
116,882
169,590
121,332
Blaby
3,796
3,796
29,234
13,588
8,019
7,532
7,998
98,270
66,371
102,066
70,167
Bolsover
3,102
3,101
30,761
15,960
7,529
4,179
4,407
83,234
62,836
86,336
65,937
58
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Boston
2,750
2,750
21,403
9,942
6,271
4,269
4,758
71,094
46,643
73,844
49,393
Broxtowe
4,363
4,363
42,285
14,899
8,705
7,097
6,153
139,534
79,138
143,897
83,501
Charnwood
6,811
6,811
49,120
20,981
15,576
13,607
13,840
155,967
113,124
162,778
119,935
Chesterfield
4,186
4,186
40,353
20,844
10,756
7,591
6,297
125,847
85,841
130,033
90,027
Corby
2,750
2,750
20,978
9,470
5,932
5,399
4,322
65,835
46,101
68,585
48,851
Daventry
3,119
3,119
44,292
13,590
8,544
10,100
20,766
122,999
97,291
126,118
100,411
Derby
9,224
9,224
60,351
30,652
16,720
20,409
16,125
222,958
144,257
232,182
153,481
Derbyshire Dales
2,982
2,982
56,639
25,231
6,876
12,440
4,693
124,463
105,878
127,445
108,861
East Lindsey
5,585
5,585
72,708
25,159
11,524
11,985
8,611
177,924
129,987
183,509
135,572
East Northamptonshire
3,427
3,427
41,238
16,896
7,888
9,083
3,767
120,706
78,872
124,133
82,299
Erewash
4,393
4,393
39,523
19,362
13,554
9,075
8,038
125,977
89,553
130,370
93,946
Gedling
4,573
4,573
46,444
21,309
9,263
8,222
7,125
130,626
92,363
135,199
96,935
Harborough
3,392
3,392
34,366
17,708
7,024
5,994
7,241
105,158
72,333
108,550
75,724
High Peak
3,747
3,747
46,449
27,357
9,331
11,220
7,890
124,484
102,247
128,231
105,995
Hinckley and Bosworth
4,333
4,333
33,818
16,781
7,055
7,217
5,688
111,946
70,559
116,279
74,892
Kettering
3,658
3,658
31,066
27,282
10,520
13,677
5,820
122,249
88,366
125,907
92,024
Leicester
11,727
11,727
65,714
59,420
16,328
23,414
14,347
285,861
179,222
297,588
190,949
Lincoln
3,371
3,371
38,435
10,276
8,856
5,874
8,003
97,361
71,443
100,732
74,814
Mansfield
4,279
4,279
36,430
27,931
5,896
8,107
9,334
115,401
87,698
119,680
91,977
Melton
2,750
2,750
26,054
7,318
4,628
8,817
3,712
69,493
50,528
72,243
53,278
Newark and Sherwood
4,362
4,362
53,624
20,393
11,390
6,280
10,817
152,786
102,505
157,148
106,867
North East Derbyshire
4,087
4,087
45,673
22,816
14,153
7,274
4,903
119,708
94,819
123,795
98,906
North Kesteven
4,258
4,258
56,590
13,665
9,017
10,052
10,903
202,905
100,228
207,163
104,487
North West Leicestershire
3,787
3,787
37,185
22,090
6,412
11,332
4,456
108,320
81,475
112,107
85,263
Northampton
7,914
7,914
77,027
37,896
16,038
12,063
15,006
256,137
158,030
264,051
165,944
Nottingham
9,874
9,874
99,553
44,869
21,676
24,529
17,142
273,587
207,769
283,461
217,643
59
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Oadby and Wigston
2,750
2,750
17,021
15,068
4,780
2,841
4,740
57,238
44,450
59,988
47,200
Rushcliffe
4,415
4,415
46,165
39,468
8,875
15,553
10,668
160,757
120,728
165,172
125,143
Rutland
2,750
2,750
17,310
11,373
6,871
3,452
1,692
50,764
40,697
53,514
43,447
South Derbyshire
3,668
3,668
33,479
8,962
8,171
4,014
8,264
115,953
62,891
119,621
66,559
South Holland
3,606
3,606
34,175
12,621
8,626
4,161
4,109
99,707
63,692
103,313
67,298
South Kesteven
5,342
5,342
51,111
22,596
16,653
10,777
8,250
166,809
109,387
172,151
114,729
South Northamptonshire
3,440
3,440
45,673
14,383
6,681
9,393
6,765
115,414
82,895
118,854
86,335
Wellingborough
2,885
2,885
21,793
12,370
5,789
5,382
4,425
84,382
49,759
87,267
52,644
West Lindsey
3,708
3,708
46,295
12,157
8,820
8,291
10,238
155,975
85,802
159,683
89,510
179,378
179,380
1,750,708
833,697
405,632
376,436
324,411
5,385,965
3,690,884
5,565,343
3,870,264
Barking and Dagenham
5,734
5,734
98,201
23,798
36,280
16,942
12,981
263,961
188,202
269,695
193,936
Barnet
10,763
10,763
223,648
85,086
50,390
37,924
31,684
480,690
428,732
491,453
439,494
Bexley
8,174
8,175
179,962
48,333
35,178
39,639
31,354
351,129
334,467
359,303
342,641
Sub-total East Midlands
London region
Brent
9,504
9,504
203,887
32,066
37,371
21,540
17,350
405,907
312,213
415,411
321,718
Bromley
11,158
11,158
228,480
90,282
55,198
49,533
23,423
472,259
446,915
483,417
458,073
Camden
7,037
7,037
120,921
58,768
35,111
22,532
11,789
268,417
249,121
275,454
256,159
City of London
2,500
2,500
5,775
6,186
1,725
2,251
0
13,618
15,937
16,118
18,437
Croydon
11,776
11,776
206,732
60,039
50,455
31,349
22,454
450,149
371,029
461,925
382,805
Ealing
10,836
10,836
269,945
68,385
44,247
34,726
30,517
448,131
447,821
458,967
458,657
Enfield
9,745
9,745
216,007
46,720
48,615
21,396
30,634
438,739
363,372
448,484
373,117
Greenwich
7,761
7,761
158,990
67,181
31,723
42,162
22,225
337,532
322,282
345,293
330,043
Hackney
7,025
7,025
123,128
56,921
38,377
51,507
6,513
277,039
276,447
284,064
283,472
Hammersmith and Fulham
5,873
5,873
131,604
32,770
33,500
15,576
10,116
243,608
223,566
249,481
229,438
Haringey
7,795
7,795
145,179
32,722
39,054
16,459
20,222
302,136
253,636
309,931
261,432
Harrow
8,050
8,050
174,188
74,583
37,602
25,654
22,826
335,360
334,854
343,410
342,904
60
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Havering
8,554
8,554
135,935
43,625
36,419
18,794
19,725
353,169
254,498
361,723
263,051
Hillingdon
9,164
9,164
152,118
43,403
39,498
11,945
23,521
388,433
270,485
397,597
279,649
Hounslow
8,403
8,403
169,616
57,839
41,110
13,291
41,181
348,872
323,038
357,275
331,441
Islington
6,641
6,641
111,036
40,708
38,405
9,334
21,470
268,766
220,952
275,407
227,593
Kensington and Chelsea
4,941
4,941
100,070
49,057
20,011
25,406
9,114
233,776
203,657
238,717
208,598
Kingston upon Thames
5,394
5,394
113,677
39,999
21,437
17,989
35,381
259,429
228,482
264,823
233,876
Lambeth
9,827
9,827
178,141
58,406
39,506
17,850
18,403
358,779
312,305
368,606
322,133
Lewisham
8,606
8,606
159,554
47,083
38,140
46,723
15,302
326,273
306,802
334,879
315,408
Merton
6,731
0
149,111
32,030
26,253
18,564
25,014
289,321
250,972
296,052
250,972
Newham
8,954
8,954
158,627
47,464
35,473
24,160
19,261
339,729
284,985
348,683
293,938
Redbridge
9,224
9,224
146,273
56,520
54,107
24,075
19,224
372,384
300,200
381,608
309,424
Richmond upon Thames
6,376
6,376
123,338
56,921
31,358
21,836
25,478
277,129
258,930
283,505
265,306
Southwark
9,019
9,019
145,915
52,701
42,261
37,904
22,644
330,938
301,426
339,957
310,445
Sutton
6,483
6,483
106,596
44,803
27,522
22,344
14,088
279,283
215,354
285,766
221,837
Tower Hamlets
7,441
7,441
157,339
33,874
39,175
33,106
10,908
326,753
274,401
334,194
281,843
Waltham Forest
8,278
8,278
148,691
45,056
45,185
38,405
37,644
326,695
314,981
334,973
323,260
Wandsworth
10,731
10,731
203,685
52,673
50,974
22,372
30,512
460,797
360,216
471,528
370,947
Westminster
6,728
6,728
140,034
33,851
31,699
37,851
8,539
295,215
251,974
301,943
258,702
265,226
258,498
5,086,403
1,619,856
1,233,360
871,137
691,494
10,924,416
9,502,251
11,189,642
9,760,748
County Durham
18,786
18,786
333,874
141,445
92,807
29,450
24,868
948,814
622,444
967,600
641,230
Darlington
4,146
4,146
36,313
19,013
14,541
8,100
9,673
133,201
87,640
137,347
91,786
Gateshead
7,687
7,687
79,587
51,337
24,228
7,464
12,443
274,935
175,058
282,622
182,745
Sub-total London
North East region
Hartlepool
3,618
3,619
32,601
12,196
6,451
7,739
6,869
109,370
65,857
112,988
69,476
Middlesbrough
5,314
5,314
37,919
18,045
7,651
9,360
8,548
139,383
81,523
144,697
86,837
Newcastle upon Tyne
10,030
10,030
94,207
72,011
20,119
8,156
24,558
355,122
219,050
365,152
229,080
61
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
North Tyneside
8,170
8,170
75,189
43,549
18,578
15,318
9,493
281,336
162,126
289,506
170,297
Northumberland
11,731
11,731
184,346
119,493
52,134
19,981
31,451
552,416
407,405
564,147
419,136
Redcar and Cleveland
5,507
5,507
54,544
25,990
11,296
16,351
6,976
157,738
115,157
163,245
120,663
South Tyneside
6,063
6,063
61,037
58,912
16,009
19,305
8,982
221,244
164,246
227,307
170,310
Stockton-on-Tees
7,385
7,384
54,643
45,949
16,505
20,175
14,371
234,120
151,644
241,505
159,028
Sunderland
11,174
11,174
73,743
97,822
27,191
39,563
15,630
391,386
253,949
402,560
265,122
Sub-total North East
99,611
99,610
1,118,002
705,763
307,510
200,963
173,862
3,799,065
2,506,100
3,898,676
2,605,709
Allerdale
3,881
3,881
43,794
17,843
10,877
5,861
3,196
151,195
81,570
155,076
85,451
Barrow-in-Furness
2,795
2,795
26,127
6,248
6,012
5,850
4,123
64,942
48,360
67,737
51,155
Blackburn with Darwen
5,362
5,362
50,147
25,298
12,802
5,719
18,480
174,244
112,446
179,606
117,808
Blackpool
5,344
5,344
49,164
47,198
14,739
9,302
10,951
240,614
131,354
245,958
136,698
Bolton
10,524
10,524
102,593
33,420
28,281
21,257
8,040
302,502
193,591
313,026
204,115
Burnley
3,509
3,509
28,046
27,807
7,039
10,097
8,690
102,018
81,678
105,527
85,187
North West region
Bury
7,403
7,403
66,606
28,408
18,085
22,529
5,450
224,648
141,079
232,051
148,481
Carlisle
4,379
4,379
69,609
12,269
8,424
8,660
13,202
169,485
112,164
173,864
116,544
Cheshire East
14,983
14,983
176,852
106,655
31,686
44,224
17,747
461,164
377,164
476,147
392,147
Cheshire West and Chester
13,129
13,129
126,739
52,589
49,294
24,204
7,033
365,753
259,860
378,882
272,989
Chorley
4,157
4,157
37,487
44,632
11,388
8,057
3,835
160,134
105,400
164,291
109,557
Copeland
2,916
2,916
38,490
14,017
5,675
7,276
2,983
108,644
68,442
111,560
71,358
Eden
2,750
2,750
49,791
17,173
6,506
9,903
4,177
90,493
87,550
93,243
90,300
Fylde
3,211
3,211
30,439
13,447
6,830
6,703
8,642
99,643
66,061
102,854
69,273
Halton
4,803
4,803
48,452
8,368
9,299
6,509
5,292
125,874
77,921
130,677
82,724
Hyndburn
3,056
3,056
25,930
16,369
7,173
3,850
7,425
102,341
60,747
105,397
63,802
Knowsley
5,835
5,835
51,090
26,657
11,946
13,619
11,705
162,504
115,018
168,339
120,853
Lancaster
5,665
5,665
42,795
22,247
18,642
7,216
10,792
154,797
101,691
160,462
107,356
62
Fees
Counting Officer
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Liverpool
16,848
16,848
146,417
62,555
43,944
40,674
20,998
423,451
314,588
440,299
331,437
Manchester
17,908
17,908
172,505
69,052
65,091
108,110
78,219
498,462
492,978
516,370
510,886
Oldham
8,392
8,392
61,829
20,929
23,084
17,191
3,803
228,107
126,836
236,499
135,228
Pendle
3,499
3,499
29,221
20,832
4,685
7,156
7,998
113,735
69,891
117,234
73,390
Preston
5,231
5,231
47,687
25,206
11,683
10,620
10,197
154,576
105,393
159,807
110,624
Ribble Valley
2,750
2,750
33,618
13,770
5,734
4,967
5,856
73,790
63,946
76,540
66,696
Rochdale
8,260
8,260
73,206
27,400
21,754
13,862
7,189
224,316
143,411
232,576
151,671
Rossendale
2,750
2,750
21,117
16,379
5,838
3,737
5,940
74,703
53,012
77,453
55,762
Salford
8,779
8,779
84,619
45,987
28,435
24,627
16,950
287,672
200,618
296,451
209,397
Sefton
10,950
10,950
80,563
52,275
24,707
18,083
24,780
281,663
200,409
292,613
211,358
South Lakeland
4,399
4,399
57,917
30,819
8,354
6,653
2,787
194,143
106,531
198,542
110,930
South Ribble
4,495
4,495
32,723
20,161
6,873
12,203
5,380
137,565
77,341
142,060
81,835
St. Helens
7,185
7,185
68,523
40,608
13,553
11,356
10,090
214,334
144,129
221,519
151,313
Stockport
11,478
11,478
147,125
59,093
24,115
20,505
11,846
317,065
262,684
328,543
274,163
Tameside
8,648
8,648
90,216
44,387
27,317
14,177
19,428
262,162
195,527
270,810
204,174
Trafford
8,745
8,745
95,935
91,854
24,725
25,049
15,123
280,416
252,687
289,161
261,432
Warrington
8,090
8,090
76,145
44,028
15,645
18,589
13,203
248,163
167,611
256,253
175,701
West Lancashire
4,494
4,494
54,471
21,313
13,243
8,521
6,733
164,795
104,280
169,289
108,774
Wigan
12,380
12,380
80,912
50,126
30,062
21,190
14,873
343,009
197,164
355,389
209,544
Wirral
12,666
12,667
82,987
46,009
18,247
19,152
19,604
306,475
185,999
319,141
198,665
Wyre
4,501
4,501
38,835
17,728
7,311
11,133
1,647
172,714
76,655
177,215
81,155
276,150
276,151
2,640,724
1,341,159
689,099
638,389
454,411
8,262,311
5,763,782
8,538,461
6,039,933
Adur
2,500
2,500
27,849
20,096
16,384
4,403
4,727
77,664
73,459
80,164
75,959
Arun
5,968
5,968
43,686
19,496
13,026
8,004
9,085
153,288
93,296
159,256
99,265
Ashford
4,475
4,475
58,994
15,477
8,567
10,619
11,716
139,835
105,374
144,310
109,849
Sub-total North West
South East region
63
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Aylesbury Vale
6,840
6,840
62,663
25,155
14,162
17,180
11,723
211,275
130,883
218,115
137,723
Basingstoke and Deane
6,323
6,323
64,084
18,768
13,550
18,070
5,899
210,935
120,371
217,258
126,694
Bracknell Forest
4,351
4,351
24,714
13,195
10,013
9,814
5,659
110,134
63,395
114,485
67,746
Brighton and Hove
10,243
10,243
88,589
46,942
24,519
26,451
14,321
265,198
200,822
275,441
211,064
Canterbury
5,567
5,567
50,596
14,970
11,781
7,209
10,065
140,393
94,621
145,960
100,188
Cherwell
5,406
5,406
76,727
20,156
10,446
13,478
17,531
200,852
138,337
206,258
143,743
Chichester
4,660
4,660
51,715
18,278
11,888
8,686
8,608
131,551
99,175
136,211
103,835
Chiltern
3,700
3,700
27,271
12,688
2,982
6,166
2,517
99,586
51,624
103,286
55,323
Crawley
3,917
3,917
35,166
8,008
9,041
9,332
4,074
105,963
65,621
109,880
69,538
Dartford
3,670
3,670
47,916
10,351
7,943
6,324
2,715
124,418
75,248
128,088
78,918
Dover
4,361
4,361
33,624
26,241
9,764
9,146
4,844
119,048
83,620
123,409
87,982
East Hampshire
4,620
4,620
43,739
15,396
10,919
15,400
8,377
124,628
93,831
129,248
98,451
Eastbourne
3,813
3,813
22,804
23,345
7,949
6,767
13,445
97,201
74,309
101,014
78,122
Eastleigh
4,905
4,905
44,216
29,109
8,991
12,494
12,620
140,448
107,429
145,353
112,334
Elmbridge
4,858
4,858
54,897
22,526
11,499
19,192
6,788
138,007
114,902
142,865
119,761
Epsom and Ewell
2,875
2,875
26,084
12,712
5,784
13,737
17,820
77,847
76,137
80,722
79,012
Fareham
4,169
4,169
52,914
19,904
14,194
7,226
8,280
145,607
102,518
149,776
106,687
Gosport
2,935
2,935
38,228
9,664
10,881
5,223
27,662
101,901
91,658
104,836
94,593
Gravesham
3,693
3,693
31,746
14,854
10,879
7,101
6,441
96,370
71,020
100,063
74,713
Guildford
5,407
5,407
38,111
26,048
11,410
12,401
6,517
167,486
94,487
172,893
99,894
Hart
3,605
3,605
31,171
15,345
9,272
15,913
4,365
95,137
76,065
98,742
79,669
Hastings
3,024
3,024
29,755
25,515
13,721
13,013
235
99,275
82,239
102,299
85,262
Havant
4,846
4,846
36,804
11,756
11,873
10,286
4,918
117,678
75,637
122,524
80,482
Horsham
5,235
5,235
41,768
33,914
9,681
14,751
7,103
138,707
107,216
143,942
112,452
Isle of Wight
5,287
5,287
60,945
22,292
21,353
11,635
6,241
178,589
122,465
183,876
127,752
Lewes
3,865
3,865
31,489
15,937
5,750
13,210
7,875
116,448
74,262
120,313
78,126
64
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Maidstone
6,007
6,007
58,729
31,738
18,163
20,747
7,967
203,215
137,344
209,222
143,351
Medway
9,625
9,626
81,097
57,327
21,367
50,518
18,121
248,785
228,430
258,410
238,056
Mid Sussex
5,413
5,413
45,490
18,778
11,927
16,740
19,518
142,204
112,452
147,617
117,866
Milton Keynes
8,831
8,831
69,754
30,071
19,843
14,243
17,601
254,225
151,512
263,056
160,343
Mole Valley
3,423
3,423
38,334
23,116
8,540
17,591
8,577
124,078
96,158
127,501
99,582
New Forest
7,419
7,419
49,689
17,663
18,169
25,508
7,174
194,035
118,203
201,454
125,622
Oxford
5,104
5,104
75,406
17,940
24,438
16,287
11,230
187,023
145,302
192,127
150,406
Portsmouth
7,258
7,258
48,393
20,564
16,282
10,987
1,985
173,508
98,210
180,766
105,468
Reading
5,690
5,690
59,363
35,986
11,730
29,103
8,849
148,918
145,031
154,608
150,721
Reigate and Banstead
5,231
5,231
52,270
21,885
10,296
13,019
6,325
149,059
103,795
154,290
109,026
Rother
3,698
3,698
32,076
18,765
6,909
7,290
6,512
107,214
71,551
110,912
75,249
Runnymede
3,084
3,084
30,174
13,108
7,131
8,961
5,013
82,163
64,387
85,247
67,471
Rushmoor
3,305
3,305
28,827
23,742
8,731
8,120
8,188
85,812
77,607
89,117
80,912
Sevenoaks
4,151
4,151
48,535
13,534
7,342
12,043
4,683
195,497
86,137
199,648
90,288
Shepway
3,906
3,906
30,121
15,275
4,280
9,886
5,965
115,235
65,527
119,141
69,433
Slough
4,365
4,365
36,285
30,786
10,630
7,190
12,569
116,325
97,460
120,690
101,824
South Bucks
2,750
2,750
24,646
13,032
5,544
4,211
3,261
86,135
50,695
88,885
53,445
South Oxfordshire
5,353
5,353
40,476
25,315
12,715
4,668
2,219
142,725
85,392
148,078
90,745
Southampton
8,998
8,998
73,363
25,824
14,909
15,249
15,215
230,510
144,559
239,508
153,557
Spelthorne
3,799
3,799
39,845
7,924
5,672
12,587
7,000
117,120
73,027
120,919
76,826
Surrey Heath
3,291
3,291
32,843
14,108
7,801
15,426
3,612
90,948
73,789
94,239
77,080
Swale
5,049
5,049
38,729
13,487
11,062
5,133
12,559
129,322
80,969
134,371
86,018
Tandridge
3,197
3,197
22,852
17,891
6,516
6,402
6,180
107,353
59,840
110,550
63,037
Test Valley
4,668
4,668
44,817
15,190
7,544
9,963
5,413
152,431
82,926
157,099
87,594
Thanet
4,993
4,993
28,863
22,490
12,039
15,010
6,188
115,211
84,590
120,204
89,583
Tonbridge and Malling
4,556
4,556
37,059
9,708
12,910
9,014
8,348
113,590
77,039
118,146
81,595
65
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Tunbridge Wells
4,120
4,120
33,055
18,616
9,472
7,798
10,017
111,076
78,958
115,196
83,078
Vale of White Horse
4,854
4,854
38,358
18,961
11,512
6,621
2,368
140,114
77,820
144,968
82,674
Waverley
4,768
4,768
42,537
11,533
9,575
14,945
2,303
130,846
80,892
135,614
85,660
Wealden
6,053
6,053
46,883
36,413
16,382
21,903
12,065
176,925
133,646
182,978
139,700
West Berkshire
6,007
6,008
56,299
32,105
12,852
8,324
6,140
195,950
115,720
201,957
121,728
West Oxfordshire
4,121
4,121
52,489
11,370
11,669
9,765
5,752
132,646
91,044
136,767
95,165
Winchester
4,636
4,636
45,394
25,751
11,713
15,621
10,146
158,858
108,625
163,494
113,261
Windsor and Maidenhead
5,298
5,298
38,472
21,778
11,088
9,202
2,275
146,928
82,815
152,226
88,113
Woking
3,701
3,701
35,977
18,096
12,121
12,095
3,791
102,485
82,079
106,186
85,780
Wokingham
6,239
6,239
49,294
32,529
10,982
12,416
12,660
181,175
117,881
187,414
124,120
Worthing
4,183
4,183
31,936
17,393
14,365
7,277
6,327
98,872
77,298
103,055
81,480
Wycombe
6,458
6,458
39,611
18,051
14,421
10,589
4,094
166,934
86,767
173,392
93,225
328,720
328,719
2,956,603
1,385,979
776,859
835,684
550,376
9,480,919
6,505,502
9,809,639
6,834,221
Bath and North East Somerset
7,073
7,073
58,201
30,299
13,628
22,569
23,518
197,309
148,214
204,382
155,287
Bournemouth
6,918
6,918
60,605
25,738
15,719
12,596
21,403
170,021
136,061
176,939
142,979
Bristol, City of
15,834
15,834
121,773
98,130
74,240
29,280
18,578
424,552
342,001
440,386
357,835
Cheltenham
4,273
4,272
50,482
37,784
33,946
9,445
6,195
148,553
137,853
152,826
142,125
Christchurch
2,750
2,750
23,697
10,220
4,146
6,048
2,697
56,979
46,808
59,729
49,558
Cornwall
19,672
19,672
374,118
94,711
93,932
72,229
62,615
919,132
697,604
938,804
717,275
Cotswold
3,459
3,459
38,104
12,994
6,018
7,076
8,382
132,489
72,574
135,948
76,033
East Devon
5,425
5,425
53,234
13,038
22,910
7,231
5,699
165,933
102,112
171,358
107,537
East Dorset
3,695
3,695
34,835
9,820
7,851
4,793
6,312
103,961
63,610
107,656
67,305
Exeter
4,438
4,438
43,045
22,039
11,536
11,878
7,382
131,063
95,879
135,501
100,317
Forest of Dean
3,434
3,434
28,388
16,088
7,583
8,556
6,581
109,705
67,196
113,139
70,630
Gloucester
4,638
4,638
35,296
23,153
7,001
7,197
7,695
143,108
80,342
147,746
84,980
Sub-total South East
South West region
66
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Isles of Scilly
2,500
2,500
3,269
662
969
1,070
720
6,874
6,690
9,374
9,190
Mendip
4,407
4,407
48,704
15,156
8,812
5,510
7,056
150,043
85,237
154,450
89,644
Mid Devon
3,137
3,137
49,669
9,648
4,440
9,336
30,180
116,082
103,273
119,219
106,411
North Devon
3,906
3,906
48,563
8,636
10,296
10,785
4,715
125,113
82,995
129,019
86,901
North Dorset
2,750
2,750
27,011
11,837
5,298
15,887
6,165
90,340
66,199
93,090
68,949
North Somerset
8,158
8,158
55,314
25,320
15,585
12,052
24,969
223,804
133,242
231,962
141,400
Plymouth
9,676
9,676
96,441
47,993
24,890
21,602
10,350
282,535
201,276
292,211
210,952
Poole
5,971
5,971
71,248
18,210
11,298
18,369
4,847
172,317
123,972
178,288
129,943
Purbeck
2,750
2,750
31,268
5,604
4,936
5,531
5,857
61,761
53,196
64,511
55,946
Sedgemoor
4,624
4,624
43,950
8,918
11,576
7,697
6,510
135,146
78,650
139,770
83,275
South Gloucestershire
10,474
10,474
68,474
26,819
20,294
24,384
16,854
295,760
156,824
306,234
167,298
South Hams
3,587
3,587
38,133
11,442
7,851
7,303
4,880
118,962
69,608
122,549
73,196
South Somerset
6,681
6,681
61,129
30,245
13,336
17,730
8,887
249,172
131,327
255,853
138,008
Stroud
4,650
4,650
64,103
16,070
13,076
14,247
4,388
168,368
111,885
173,018
116,535
Swindon
8,005
8,005
69,113
21,813
21,593
28,042
17,571
189,604
158,132
197,609
166,137
Taunton Deane
4,327
4,327
41,808
9,512
9,833
10,004
4,410
133,400
75,567
137,727
79,894
Teignbridge
5,318
5,318
44,607
17,398
10,706
10,466
8,181
168,042
91,358
173,360
96,676
Tewkesbury
3,313
3,313
27,838
7,292
7,642
7,078
2,043
96,382
51,893
99,695
55,205
Torbay
5,526
5,526
38,405
9,366
7,123
13,355
16,561
141,854
84,811
147,380
90,338
Torridge
2,750
2,750
32,482
12,392
6,085
7,893
4,006
94,586
62,858
97,336
65,608
West Devon
2,750
2,750
30,618
9,335
4,307
4,683
6,623
83,247
55,565
85,997
58,315
West Dorset
4,194
4,194
41,955
17,050
8,602
6,788
3,269
140,461
77,664
144,655
81,858
West Somerset
2,750
2,750
25,257
6,747
2,985
3,001
6,301
53,088
44,291
55,838
47,041
Weymouth and Portland
2,750
2,750
27,228
15,244
10,036
5,959
2,695
74,363
61,162
77,113
63,912
Wiltshire
16,388
16,388
278,860
81,813
65,136
72,135
17,233
726,965
515,177
743,353
531,566
212,951
212,949
2,287,224
838,537
605,218
539,804
402,326
6,801,074
4,673,109
7,014,025
4,886,057
Sub-total South West
67
Fees
Counting Officer
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Birmingham
38,246
38,246
324,415
183,479
63,620
127,387
34,117
911,563
733,018
949,809
771,264
Bromsgrove
3,852
3,852
36,213
14,323
8,484
8,500
6,765
109,000
74,285
112,852
78,137
Cannock Chase
3,913
3,913
37,593
16,347
10,982
3,965
6,448
117,098
75,334
121,011
79,247
Coventry
11,651
11,651
124,118
40,299
20,019
40,747
42,686
302,001
267,868
313,652
279,519
Dudley
12,597
12,597
111,927
46,658
28,674
18,081
9,249
341,397
214,589
353,994
227,186
West Midland region
East Staffordshire
4,422
4,422
40,320
24,599
16,272
8,237
4,835
144,934
94,263
149,356
98,685
Herefordshire, County of
7,216
7,216
83,303
18,309
14,689
42,201
6,020
230,253
164,521
237,469
171,737
Lichfield
4,070
4,070
45,261
16,739
7,818
16,207
8,063
136,160
94,089
140,230
98,159
Malvern Hills
3,095
3,095
35,743
7,069
6,155
4,204
14,762
97,708
67,933
100,803
71,027
Newcastle-under-Lyme
5,099
5,099
55,947
15,667
7,067
6,480
14,776
147,264
99,937
152,363
105,036
North Warwickshire
2,750
2,750
29,200
4,195
5,994
6,350
3,920
75,727
49,659
78,477
52,409
Nuneaton and Bedworth
4,256
4,256
65,790
16,450
23,738
10,618
8,348
169,095
124,943
173,351
129,200
Redditch
3,303
3,303
29,136
13,218
7,047
6,928
4,862
92,015
61,191
95,318
64,494
Rugby
3,887
3,887
48,998
14,309
9,333
7,883
6,768
127,045
87,291
130,932
91,178
Sandwell
11,607
11,607
121,510
47,339
32,675
18,243
17,114
315,993
236,881
327,600
248,488
Shropshire
10,932
10,932
237,816
52,817
50,547
40,495
18,347
504,128
400,021
515,060
410,953
Solihull
8,136
8,136
57,726
35,434
16,003
17,939
23,168
238,314
150,270
246,450
158,406
South Staffordshire
4,454
4,454
40,474
11,810
8,832
3,900
5,325
134,414
70,341
138,868
74,795
Stafford
5,101
5,101
68,713
14,796
9,856
19,872
7,657
187,956
120,894
193,057
125,995
Staffordshire Moorlands
4,086
4,086
38,292
15,548
7,900
25,409
12,041
129,100
99,190
133,186
103,276
Stoke-on-Trent
9,823
9,823
91,666
16,282
19,216
18,310
6,697
266,780
152,171
276,603
161,993
Stratford-on-Avon
4,936
4,936
83,123
17,465
13,339
16,833
7,324
202,283
138,084
207,219
143,020
Tamworth
3,007
3,007
36,867
12,123
10,650
4,474
5,299
92,188
69,412
95,195
72,419
Telford and Wrekin
6,332
6,332
51,794
25,337
13,207
15,921
8,490
253,779
114,749
260,111
121,081
Walsall
9,872
9,872
104,956
25,825
33,764
52,309
10,384
272,044
227,238
281,916
237,110
68
Fees
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
Counting Officer
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Warwick
5,245
5,245
50,563
22,188
7,661
16,270
6,617
166,159
103,299
171,404
108,544
Wolverhampton
9,058
9,058
117,209
33,023
26,903
19,278
19,370
284,577
215,783
293,635
224,841
Worcester
3,896
3,896
46,445
14,757
9,560
7,085
4,965
113,368
82,812
117,264
86,709
Wychavon
4,762
4,762
58,487
18,767
9,514
14,731
9,327
161,576
110,826
166,338
115,588
Wyre Forest
4,020
4,020
31,994
15,903
8,222
13,416
10,160
113,053
79,696
117,073
83,716
213,624
213,625
2,305,598
811,076
507,740
612,271
343,903
6,436,972
4,580,588
6,650,596
4,794,213
Barnsley
9,184
9,184
86,264
51,939
23,367
18,314
31,405
266,585
211,289
275,769
220,473
Bradford
17,364
17,364
152,814
66,258
37,951
62,211
41,383
500,460
360,619
517,824
377,983
Calderdale
7,709
7,709
66,367
37,668
16,821
13,620
9,685
247,819
144,162
255,528
151,871
Craven
2,750
2,750
40,239
19,444
8,002
4,908
5,808
104,297
78,400
107,047
81,150
Doncaster
11,354
11,354
88,707
56,741
16,958
15,091
18,383
408,677
195,881
420,031
207,235
East Riding of Yorkshire
13,902
13,902
168,197
36,599
38,731
11,593
3,939
407,471
259,060
421,373
272,962
Hambleton
3,668
3,668
46,278
15,789
10,352
5,325
5,013
128,644
82,757
132,312
86,425
Harrogate
6,179
6,179
95,703
30,522
15,435
12,153
15,686
270,554
169,498
276,733
175,676
Kingston upon Hull, City of
9,526
9,526
119,018
13,069
15,892
8,263
6,861
226,448
163,103
235,974
172,629
Kirklees
15,664
15,664
125,402
96,340
29,535
21,341
14,231
426,013
286,850
441,677
302,514
Leeds
28,529
28,529
258,961
122,220
62,563
51,066
38,342
806,927
533,151
835,456
561,680
North East Lincolnshire
6,092
6,092
66,875
22,757
11,385
10,482
4,564
166,385
116,063
172,477
122,155
North Lincolnshire
6,568
6,568
52,121
21,169
13,797
4,844
10,503
207,264
102,435
213,832
109,002
Sub-total West Midlands
Yorkshire region
Richmondshire
2,750
2,750
31,150
8,304
3,826
4,041
8,478
71,335
55,800
74,085
58,550
Rotherham
10,067
10,067
80,325
85,838
21,733
29,689
16,867
326,586
234,452
336,653
244,519
Ryedale
2,750
2,750
45,329
8,928
4,344
5,456
9,779
93,797
73,836
96,547
76,586
Scarborough
4,518
4,518
39,307
18,655
12,100
11,093
8,439
129,488
89,595
134,006
94,113
Selby
3,267
3,267
30,184
14,315
6,368
5,209
3,029
115,896
59,105
119,163
62,371
Sheffield
19,175
19,175
115,839
104,963
37,944
39,316
19,640
543,112
317,702
562,287
336,877
69
Fees
Counting Officer
Polling
Station
Postal
voting
Poll
cards
Count
costs
Other
costs
Sub-total charges
Total Fees and Charges
MRA
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Wakefield
13,200
13,200
119,814
70,280
26,869
38,718
16,506
354,122
272,187
367,322
285,387
York
7,872
7,872
66,011
53,625
12,007
22,187
18,531
204,970
172,361
212,842
180,233
202,088
202,087
1,894,906
955,424
425,980
394,920
307,074
6,006,850
3,978,304
6,208,938
4,180,392
Sub-total England
2,004,766
1,998,036
22,151,304
9,361,315
5,489,069
4,952,842
3,645,606
63,657,363
45,600,135
65,662,129
47,598,171
Total Expenditure
2,338,616
2,331,887
27,276,787
10,613,790
6,270,700
6,688,702
4,523,763
76,877,508
55,373,742
79,216,124
57,705,629
Sub-total Yorkshire & Humber
70
Appendix B: Further information
about breakdown of costs
2011 UK Referendum – Fees and
Charges per elector / vote cast
Region
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
East Midlands
East of England
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and
Humber
TOTAL
Fees and Electorate
size
charges
paid (£m) (millions)
6.16
3.893
2.68
2.269
1.36
1.199
4.67
4.263
3.91
3.348
9.79
5.259
2.63
1.968
6.11
5.239
6.88
6.288
4.91
4.029
4.82
4.094
4.21
3.835
58.13
45.685
Votes
cast
(millions)
Cost per
elector
Cost per
vote cast
1.976
0.947
0.669
1.839
1.432
1.862
0.762
2.049
2.788
1.797
1.633
1.53
£1.58
£1.18
£1.13
£1.10
£1.17
£1.86
£1.34
£1.17
£1.09
£1.22
£1.18
£1.10
£3.12
£2.83
£2.
£2.54
£2.73
£5.26
£3.45
£2.98
£2.47
£2.73
£2.95
£2.75
19.286
£1.27
£3.01
Fees and Charges analysis by cost type
This section compares actual spend against Maximum Recoverable Amount (MRA)
for the individual categories of reportable cost. Data is reported by expenditure sub
headings and also geographically by country or English region.
Regional Counting Officer Fees
Regional Counting Officer fees were set at a flat rate of £12,000 and were claimed in
full. Total expenditure for the eleven Regional Counting Officers was £132,000.
71
Counting Officer Fees
Counting Officer Fees by country or English region
£
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
Expenditure totals
MRA
213,629
120,221
227,018
179,378
265,226
99,611
276,150
328,720
212,951
213,624
202,088
2,338,616
Actual
213,629
120,221
227,018
179,378
258,498
99,611
276,150
328,720
212,951
213,624
202,088
2,331,888
Variance
0
0
0
0
6,728
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,728
Polling Station costs
Polling Station costs by expense type
£
Presiding Officers
Poll Clerks
Supervising officers
T&S
Training
Accommodation
MRA
5,682,870
6,702,872
572,360
2,373,732
3,956,221
8,596,992
Actual
5,190,346
7,499,064
601,222
606,179
2,664,223
4,370,860
Variance
492,524
(796,192)
(28,862)
1,767,553
1,291,998
4,226,132
Equipment transport, preparation
1,687,082
2,198,942
(511,860)
1,800,851
244,133
31,617,113
2,658,640
1,487,311
27,276,787
(857,789)
(1,243,178)
4,340,326
Actual
2,861,160
1,255,799
1,008,525
2,111,134
Variance
510,338
389,011
(1,008,525)
507,422
Ballot Papers
Equipment
Expenditure totals
Polling station costs by country or English region
£
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
East of England
MRA
3,371,498
1,644,810
0
2,618,556
72
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
Expenditure totals
2,203,055
5,550,986
1,461,304
3,070,113
3,675,782
2,999,212
2,816,692
2,205,108
31,617,116
1,750,708
5,086,403
1,118,002
2,640,724
2,956,603
2,287,224
2,305,598
1,894,906
27,276,787
452,347
464,583
343,302
429,389
719,179
711,988
511,094
310,202
4,340,329
Actual
722,650
1,944,066
47,555
3,512,146
1,599,497
1,295,952
561,619
930,305
0
10,613,790
Variance
274,497
1,795,235
426,090
739,972
1,956,820
1,371,286
375,699
(890,875)
17,000
6,065,724
Postal voting costs
Postal voting costs by expense type
£
Staff: Prep & Issue
Staff: Opening & Checking
Training
Printing & Stationery
Postage Outward
Postage Inward
Accommodation
Equipment
Cross boundary checking
Total
MRA
997,147
3,739,301
473,645
4,252,118
3,556,317
2,667,238
937,318
39,430
17,000
16,679,514
Postal voting costs by country or English region
£
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
Expenditure totals
MRA
1,253,152
873,160
0
1,435,126
1,253,224
1,917,829
1,224,001
2,192,995
2,146,312
1,483,198
1,273,750
1,626,765
16,679,512
73
Actual
809,447
419,823
23,205
869,825
833,697
1,619,856
705,763
1,341,159
1,385,979
838,537
811,076
955,424
10,613,790
Variance
443,705
453,337
(23,205)
565,301
419,527
297,973
518,238
851,836
760,333
644,661
462,674
671,341
6,065,722
Poll card costs
Poll card costs by expense type
£
MRA
Actual
Variance
1,458,430
310,204
1,148,226
13,641
7,304
6,337
Printing & Stationery
Postage & Delivery
1,350,638
14,406,810
1,221,554
4,731,638
129,085
9,675,172
Expenditure totals
17,229,519
6,270,700
10,958,819
Actual
415,651
289,585
76,395
537,670
405,632
1,233,360
307,510
689,099
776,859
605,218
507,740
425,980
6,270,700
Variance
1,096,871
573,089
(76,395)
1,115,763
881,281
923,890
442,228
1,324,554
1,644,605
934,800
1,062,264
1,035,870
10,958,819
Staff: Preparation
Equipment
Poll card costs by country or English region
£
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
Expenditure totals
MRA
1,512,522
862,674
0
1,653,433
1,286,913
2,157,250
749,738
2,013,653
2,421,464
1,540,018
1,570,004
1,461,850
17,229,519
Count costs
Count costs by expense type
£
Count Staff Pay
Supervisor Pay
T&S
Training
Accommodation
Equipment
Transport
Security
Expenditure totals
MRA
2,044,237
422,183
107,536
211,091
959,265
470,113
902,645
669,297
5,786,367
74
Actual
3,046,694
1,329,495
91,769
122,101
1,179,813
460,605
333,856
255,253
6,819,586
Variance
(1,002,457)
(907,312)
15,767
88,990
(220,548)
9,508
568,789
414,044
(1,033,219)
Count costs by country or English region
£
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
Expenditure totals
MRA
483,600
279,590
0
564,391
428,522
845,594
235,380
641,671
820,171
517,482
508,315
461,651
5,786,367
Actual
1,319,264
320,977
129,815
487,623
393,128
877,650
214,285
669,546
840,984
545,234
614,250
406,830
6,819,586
Variance
(835,664)
(41,387)
(129,815)
76,768
35,394
(32,056)
21,095
(27,875)
(20,813)
(27,752)
(105,935)
54,821
(1,033,219)
Other costs
Other costs by expense type
£
General clerical
Travel & Subsistence
Training
Materials
Superannuation
Translation
RO expenses
Expenditure totals
MRA
2,441,864
80,751
655,912
96,013
0
40,000
165,000
3,479,540
Actual
2,584,596
58,903
483,708
1,522,379
27,934
3,298
0
4,680,819
Variance
(142,732)
21,848
172,204
(1,426,366)
(27,934)
36,702
165,000
(1,201,279)
Other costs by country or English region
£
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
MRA
292,697
221,585
0
328,363
258,720
488,448
151,166
383,332
75
Actual
524,779
257,611
118,935
423,079
336,974
701,147
174,973
484,227
Variance
(232,082)
(36,026)
(118,935)
(94,716)
(78,254)
(212,699)
(23,807)
(100,895)
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
Expenditure totals
474,199
299,365
302,019
279,646
3,479,540
574,458
412,319
360,701
311,616
4,680,819
(100,259)
(112,954)
(58,682)
(31,970)
(1,201,279)
Solely attributable costs
The table below shows solely attributable costs incurred at the referendum. These
costs have already been included in the appropriate expenditure summary tables
above but are summarised separately here to illustrate the importance of securing
funding for future events.
Solely attributable costs by expense type
£
Polling Stations
Postal Voting
Poll Cards
Count Costs
Expenditure totals
Actual
962,369
1,615
14,112
47,137
1,025,233
Solely attributable costs by country or English region
£
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and Humber
Expenditure totals
Actual
24,793
14,386
0
110,873
136,162
2,990
55,039
326,075
138,536
74,771
118,955
22,653
1,025,233
76
Cost of a future ‘stand-alone’ Referendum
Comparing the cost of this referendum with similar events is fraught with difficulty
given the limited number of historical precedents and the lack of consistent published
data for these. It can be observed though that the final spend in 2011 fell some way
below that anticipated by the Cabinet Office and Treasury in planning and approving
initial funding levels.
Reported spend for the last UK wide event, the 1975 EEC referendum, was £11.415m
which would equate to £71.4m at 2011 price levels (calculated in line with RPI).
The table below illustrates an estimated full cost of staging a future ‘stand-alone’
Referendum event. The figure is obtained by taking the actual 2011 outturn and
reversing the multi-event combination factors applied within the Cabinet Office
model. The other material assumption is the use of the original Cabinet Office figure
for central mailing costs where we believe the 2011 experience to be potentially
unrepresentative. An anticipated reduction in payment processing costs is also
included, reflecting efficiencies and lessons learned from 2011.
These calculations suggest a full cost estimate, at 2011 prices, in the region of
£100m. This number would of course require further adjustment to reflect any
significant new direction on operational delivery from the Chief Counting Officer or
any material changes to the Commission role or activity.
Expenditure Item
Counting Officer expenses
Counting Officer fees
Central mailings and sweep costs
Sub-total PVSC costs
EC Public Awareness activity
EC Grants staffing and other
ECU costs (payment processing)
Total Referendum costs
Cost of
2011 event
Estimated
full cost
55.662
2.464
8.799
66.925
7.523
0.367
0.400
75.215
71.097
2.248
18.908
92.253
7.523
0.367
0.250
100.393
Based on the full cost estimates above for a stand-alone event, the table below
provides estimates for stand-alone events in the different parts of the UK. These
estimates are for Counting Officers expenses and fees only. Other costs relating to
Electoral Commission and payment processing activities would vary depending on
the nature of the event.
77
Area
England
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Estimated
cost (£m)
58.771
2.500
8.355
3.719
In terms of comparing the estimated costs above with actual stand-alone events that
have taken place in the recent past, the Welsh Assembly Government incurred costs
of £3.819 million in relation to Counting Officers fees and expenses for the 2011
referendum on the law-making powers of the National Assembly for Wales.
78
Appendix C: Legislation: Charges
Order and Accounts Regulations
The Referendum on the Voting System (Counting Officers’ and Regional Counting
Officers’ Charges) Order 2011
The Charges Order contains schedules which list local authorities in Great Britain
and alongside them sets out the maximum amounts recoverable by Counting
Officers in respect of the specified services rendered and the specified expenses
incurred for or in connection with the referendum together with the total of these
figures – the overall maximum recoverable amounts for each voting area.
The Charges Order also lists what constitutes a Counting Officer’s specified
services. These include conducting the referendum, discharging the Counting
Officer’s duties at the referendum and making arrangements for the referendum. The
Order sets a maximum recoverable amount for services of the description specified
for each authority.
Similarly the Charges Order lists what a Counting Officer may claim in respect of any
of the specified expenses. These include providing and paying staff, conducting the
referendum and the count and all the ancillary activities necessary to discharge the
Counting Officer’s functions. Again, the Order sets a maximum recoverable amount
for expenses of the description specified for each authority.
A link to the Charges Order is here:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/116647/Feesand-Charges-Order-2011-FINAL.pdf
The Counting Officers’, Regional Counting Officers’ and Chief Counting Officers’
Accounts (Parliamentary Voting System Referendum) Regulations 2011
These Regulations set out the time and manner in which Counting Officers’ accounts
must be submitted. The Regulations require accounts to be submitted by Thursday 5
January 2012. They provide for the submission of incomplete accounts where that
may be necessary and describe the circumstances under which incomplete accounts
may be submitted. They also set out the documents to be submitted with the
accounts and the form of the accounts.
A link to the Accounts Regulations is here:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/
0011/116579/FINAL-ORDER-Counting-Officers-Regional-Counting-Officers-and-theChief-Counting-Officers-Accounts-Parliamentary-Voting-System-ReferendumRegu.pdf
79
Appendix D: Overview of
expenditure on the 2011
Referendum
The Commission engaged the National Audit Office to provide independent
assurance on the expenditure authorised through the Parliamentary Voting System
and Constituencies Act 2011, This comprises the £58.126m paid to Counting
Officers and Regional Counting Officers in respect of Fees and Charges claimed and
the further £8.799m incurred by the Chief Counting Officer for centrally arranged
mailings and postal sweeps. An expenditure summary and assurance statement
relating to this expenditure is provided in this Appendix. The costs incurred by the
Electoral Commission have also been reported in the Commission’s 2011-12 Annual
Report and Accounts.
Referendum expenditure
1. Additional Commission functions in respect of the 2011 Referendum were
defined in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 (the
Act). Under the terms of the Act claims for expenditure necessarily incurred by
the Chief Counting Officer, Regional Counting Officers and Counting Officers in
the efficient and effective conduct of the Referendum are to be settled by the
Electoral Commission with payments to be charged on and paid out of the
Consolidated Fund.
2. Schedule 1 paragraph 20 of the Act prescribes the permissible expenditure and
requires that the Electoral Commission must pay the amount of any charges
recoverable in accordance with this paragraph on an account being submitted to
them.
3. Schedule 1 Paragraph 22 of the Act requires that the Electoral Commission must
prepare Accounts in respect of expenditure in relation to the Referendum if
directed to do so by the Treasury, and that these Accounts must be submitted by
the Commission to the Comptroller and Auditor General and to the Speaker’s
Committee. After discussion with the Commission and the NAO the Treasury
elected not to direct the preparation of Accounts on the basis that existing
financial reporting of Referendum expenditure within the Electoral Commission’s
2011-12 Accounts is sufficient and also because the Electoral Commission will
prepare a Referendum Report, including an analysis of all associated
expenditure. This analysis is set out below and at Appendix B.
4. The National Audit Office have reviewed the financial information included in
Appendix D to this report and the Comptroller and Auditor General has provided
an independent statement of assurance as set out in paragraph 6 below.
80
Expenditure summary
£
Counting Officer expenses
Counting Officer fees
Sub-total Counting Officer fees and charges
Central mailings and sweep costs
Parliamentary Voting System and
Constituencies Act 2011 costs
55,661,682
2,463,887
58,125,569
8,799,188
66,924,757
Fees and Charges expenditure
Fees and Charges expenditure – Total by Country or English region (£)
Fees
Country / Region
East of England
East Midlands
London
North East
North West
South East
South West
West Midlands
Yorkshire and
Humber
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Expenditure
totals
Charges
Total Fees and Charges
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
MRA
Actual
Variance
239,018
239,018
6,604,260
4,429,330
6,843,278
4,668,348
2,174,930
191,378
277,226
111,611
288,150
340,720
224,951
225,624
214,088
191,380
270,498
111,610
288,151
340,719
224,949
225,625
214,087
5,426,045
10,960,107
3,821,589
8,301,764
9,537,928
6,839,273
6,470,782
6,035,017
3,720,140
9,518,416
2,520,533
5,824,755
6,534,884
4,688,533
4,599,365
3,994,756
5,617,423
11,237,333
3,933,200
8,589,914
9,878,648
7,064,224
6,696,406
6,249,105
3,911,520
9,788,913
2,632,143
6,112,906
6,875,603
4,913,481
4,824,990
4,208,843
1,705,903
1,448,420
1,301,057
2,477,008
3,003,045
2,150,743
1,871,416
2,040,262
132,221
225,629
0
2,470,61
6
132,222
225,629
0
2,463,887
3,881,817
6,913,472
2,500,000
77,292,054
2,543,796
5,930,300
1,356,875
55,661,682
4,014,038
7,139,101
2,500,000
79,762,670
2,676,018
6,155,929
1,356,875
58,125,569
1,338,020
983,172
1,143,125
21,637,10
1
Fees and Charges expenditure - Total by cost category (£)
Expense item
Counting Officer Fees
Polling Station costs
Postal Voting costs
Poll Card costs
Count costs
Other costs
MRA
2,470,616
31,617,114
16,679,512
17,229,519
5,786,367
3,479,572
81
Actual
2,463,887
27,276,787
10,613,790
6,270,700
6,819,586
4,680,819
Variance
6,729
4,340,327
6,065,722
10,958,819
-1,033,219
-1,202,196
Northern Ireland (not broken
down)
Expenditure totals
2,500,000
79,762,670
58,125,569
2,500,000
21,637,101
Funding summary
5. In accordance with the Act the funding for the expenditure necessarily incurred by
the Chief Counting Officer, Regional Counting Officers and Counting Officers was
provided from the Consolidated Fund. The monies were drawn down and applied as
follows:
Funds flow statement
Movement
Funding from Consolidated Fund on 1 April 2011and
8 June 2011
Funds applied to central mailing and sweep costs
Funds applied to recoverable charges
Funds applied to Fee payments
Remaining balance unallocated
Excess funding repaid to Consolidated Fund on 30
March 2012
Remaining balance repaid to Consolidated Fund on 5
December 2012
Balance due to the Consolidated Fund
82
£m
70.862
8.799
55.662
2.464
3.937
2.716
1.221
0
The Electoral Commission
3 Bunhill Row
London EC1Y 8YZ
Tel 020 7271 0500
Fax 020 7271 0505
[email protected]
www.electoralcommission.org.uk
To contact our offices in Scotland,
Wales, Northern Ireland and the
English regions, please see our
website.
We are an independent body set up by the
UK Parliament. We regulate party and
election finance and set standards for wellrun elections. We work to support a healthy
democracy, where elections and
referendums are based on our principles of
trust, participation, and no undue influence.
Putting voters first