Please can I have some advice on a stress risk assessment for the general election. In short, staff at Poll Stations are potentially going to be put in a position where they have a legal obligation to lie to voters. To me this seems likely to induces stress, so have no idea how one could actually be signed off. There is statutory guidance that means the only advice Poll staff can administer is to read out the words on the top of the ballot paper. This says "Vote for one candidate only". However, all voters have an option to spoil their ballot and all Poll Station staff should know this. So, if an uneducated voter (and there are many) asks "I want to vote and take part in the process but do not wish to vote for any specific candidate. Is there any way that I can take part?" The only advice the staff can offer is to read the ballot paper, which means they can not advise them of their option to spoil their ballot. This seems like the only options are to break Electoral legislation and give the correct guidance or break the HSWA by forcing them to lie. Any suggestions welcome (or oneway tickets to an isolated location)

I'm not clear what you mean by "break the HSWA by forcing them to lie" What am I missing here?

There's a reason this post has 245 views, but only four responses - two of them offering no advice (mine included!)

And an IOSH Member...............................

I would like to rule out a few issues that have come up else where that are a distraction and agree on some others things that no longer need to be discussed as a means to keep to the point (please do feel free to challenge them though, but dont mix them up with other arguments. Lets all agree that people do have an option to spoil their ballot paper. Lets all agree that Poll Staff should be aware of this OPTION Let us not debate how ethical these people may be and how often they choose to lie Let us not debate the external influences that pressure people into taking jobs. Let us focus on Carl’s question: Why do they need to lie. Before i move onto that I would like to clear up one issue. As a lowly Tech member I do appreciate that i have much to learn, but Chris has raised the issue of what Stress has to do with the Management Regs. My understanding is that the Management Regs require you to be able to demonstrate through your management approach that you are complying with the H&SWA. Chris also posed the question of what “controls with you magically come up with”. Which is kind of my whole point. Since my last post I have looked through the H&SWA and couldn’t find the specific schedule that references that Stress must be assessed, so I would welcome some clarity on that too. But if there is a legal requirement to conduct a risk assessment relating to stress, and we are knowingly unable to create any controls that can mitigate the stress, and that the stress has a real potential to a cause significant hazard. Would there not be an obligation to stop the activity or change the process? (Q1) The question then moves closer to Carl’s “why do they need to lie”, but before going to that would like to address what a significant hazard. It has been mentioned that this event takes place very infrequently, but the question of how frequently it may happen on the day and what magnitude or impact it will have on the individual staff has not. before we consider whether or not this particular incident forces people to lie, do you think that knowingly placing the number of staff that we are talking about (i dont know the numbers) in a situation where they are occasionally forced to provide ‘deceptive’ advice, although they have no ‘intention’ to deceive as part of their job, is compatible with the stress related legislation we currently have? (Q2) Because if the answer to this is ‘yes’ I need to start another question. As Jeff points out (much appreciated), and i have used above, a Lie is where there is intention to deceive, and that is different to following an instruction. While that is true, Nazi SS Officers are still being bought to trial for carrying out instructions. While clearly very different in some ways, my aim is to indicate that simply carrying out instructions can be morally wrong. So unless someone can provide some strong counter evidence i will now explain why staff will be placed in this position where there is a conflict between their intention and the outcome. The Electoral Commission guidance to staff in Section 5 p.15 says “some voters may still find the instructions unclear… In these circumstance the Presiding Officer the instructions printed at the top of the ballot paper and the details of the candidates in the order that they appear on the ballot paper.” http://www.electoralcomm...ation-handbook-UKPGE.pdf This says “Vote for one candidate only only by putting a cross [X] in the box next to your choice”. The following is an email from the Electoral Service Manager at Lewisham Council. Whole sentences have been removed but no other editing has been done. Dear Malcolm If a voter askes “I am looking for advice on how to vote, can I spoil my ballot paper?” What official response should they get? Dear David Thank you for your further email of the 23 April. I can only repeat what was said in my earlier e-mail of the 17 April It is not permissible for staff employed in polling stations to advise voters how to mark their ballot papers, save to read the instructions at the top of the ballot paper, as you have remarked. That does not prevent an elector making a choice to spoil their paper howsoever they may wish. Electoral Services Manager London Borough of Lewisham Direct: 020 8314 6907 http://www.lewisham.gov.uk So, does this situation have any resemblance to the one addressed in Q2? Does this situation have any resemblance to the one addressed in Q1?

PS For Teller read poll clerks-ooops

Hi again I shall just have to disagree with the Electoral Services Manager at Lewisham-seems like a very rigid response to me. Regards Mike