Our Report on Elections Held in Tower Hamlets in May 2014

5/19/2018 Our Report on Elections Held in Tower Hamlets in May 2014

1

Delays at the verification and count forthe May 2014 elections in TowerHamlets

Report of the Electoral Commissions review

July 2014


2

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]

We are an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. We regulateparty and election finance and set standards for well-run elections. We

work to support a healthy democracy, where elections and referendums arebased on our principles of trust, participation, and no undue influence.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3

Contents

Summary 4

1 About this report 9

2 Background to the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets 11

3 Analysis of verification and count processes 21

4 Conclusions and recommendations 35

Appendix A: Submissions to our review 40


4

Summary

About this review

Following the European and local elections that took place on 22 May 2014,the Electoral Commission announced a review of how the verification andcount for the elections in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in Londonwere administered.

The purpose of this review has been to understand why the count for the 22May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets took so long, and to identifyrecommendations for the management of future election counts in theborough.

Our review has considered evidence from the Returning Officer for Tower

Hamlets and the Regional Returning Officer for the European Parliamentelection for the London region, and submissions from candidates, electionagents and others involved in the conduct of the count. We have also drawnon the direct observations of three Electoral Commission representatives whowere present during the verification and count on Friday 23 May.

We are aware that an election petition challenging the result of the election forthe mayor of Tower Hamlets was lodged with the High Court on 10 June2014. We have therefore amended the contents of this report to exclude anyconclusions relating to the appointment and behaviour of counting agents andother attendees at the verification and count, to ensure that our review doesnot prejudice the outcome of that challenge.

The May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets

The May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets included three sets of polls:

the election of Tower Hamlets councillors;

the election of Tower Hamlets executive mayor;

the election of members of the European Parliament for the Londonelectoral region of the UK.

Ten candidates stood for election as the executive Mayor of Tower Hamlets,and a total of 204 candidates stood for election as councillors in 20 wards.

Turnout in for the local elections in Tower Hamlets was 47.6%, and turnout forthe European Parliament elections was 50.8%. In total, 252,837 ballot paperswere included in the count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets.

Verification of the contents of ballot boxes for the May 2014 elections in TowerHamlets and the count for the Tower Hamlets Mayoral and local wardelections was intended to take place from 8am on Friday 23 May 2014 at the

Troxy, a venue on Commercial Road in Limehouse which was originally acinema. The count for the members of the European Parliament for the


5

London electoral region of the UK was intended to take place from 4pm onSunday 25 May at the Mile End Leisure Centre.

Summary of key points during the verification and

count process which were delayedThe result of the election of the executive Mayor for Tower Hamlets wasannounced at 01.15am on Saturday 24 May, after the count of first andsecond preference votes. Count totals for Tower Hamlets for the election ofmembers of the European Parliament for the London Region were announcedby 02.40am on Monday 26 May

The results of 13 local council ward elections were declared by 09.00am onSaturday 24 May, and a further five ward results were declared by 02.40amon Monday 26 May after recounts which took place from 14.30pm on Sunday

25 May. The result for the final ward election was declared by 21.30pm onTuesday 27 May, after a further recount which took place from 19.00pm thatevening.

Based on data provided by the Returning Officer and observations from otherswho submitted evidence to this review, we have identified the following keypoints during the verification and count which were delayed:

Starting verification:The process of opening ballot boxes andbeginning the verification of the contents against the ballot paperaccounts started approximately two and a half hours later than planned.

Verification: The process of verifying the contents of ballot boxesagainst the ballot paper accounts took approximately one and a halfhours longer than planned.

Mayoral first preference count: The process of counting the firstpreference votes for the Mayoral election took approximately two and ahalf hours longer than planned.

Mayoral second preference count: The process of counting thesecond preference votes for the Mayoral election took nearly an hourlonger than planned.

Local authority ward counts: The process of counting the votes for thelocal authority ward elections took place over three separate sessionsbetween the early hours of Saturday 24 May and the evening of Tuesday27 May. Overall, including recounts, the process of counting the votesfor the local authority wards took approximately 23 and a half hours,1significantly longer than the scheduled duration of six hours.

1

Comprising nine hours between Friday 23 and Saturday 24 May; 12 hours between Sunday25 and Monday 26 May; and two and a half hours on Tuesday 27 May.


6

European Parliamentary count: Overall, the process of counting thevotes for the European Parliament election (which took place alongsideunexpected local election recounts) took seven and a half hours longerthan originally planned.

Conclusions

Having considered the comments and evidence submitted to us as part of thisreview, we have identified two primary factors which appear to have causedthe overall delay in completing the counts for the May 2014 elections in TowerHamlets:

Access to the count venue on Friday 23 May:delays in allowing countstaff and those entitled to attend the verification and count meant thatverification was delayed by approximately two and a half hours.

Inadequate resource management during the verification and counton Friday 23 May and Saturday 24 May, and on Sunday 25 May: inaddition to the significant delay to the start of the verification process onFriday 23 May, the number of count staff available was insufficient eitherto recover from the initial delay or to manage the number of ballot papersto be verified and counted within the Returning Officers plannedtimetable.

By the time the count for the council wards began at 1am on Saturday 24May, count staff (and those attending to observe the count as candidates or

agents) had been present at the venue for more than 17 hours. Fatigue andsubsequent errors by count staff meant that further delays during the localelection counts, including those caused by requests for recounts, weresignificantly more frequent and were also likely to have magnified the overalldelay to the completion of the count.

Underlying both of these main factors were plans for the management of theverification and count on Friday 23 May which proved inadequate for thenumber of ballot papers to be counted and the intense focus of candidatesand agents on the count process. Given the context for the elections,summarised in this report, the Returning Officer should have anticipated many

of the factors which appeared to have contributed to the length of the count.

A realistic assessment of the potential for higher than average turnout in sucha close and hard-fought contest should have identified the need for more staffin order to meet the Returning Officers planned schedule. Likewise, given thelarge number of count staff and other attendees expected to enter the countvenue through a relatively small foyer area, the Returning Officer should havebeen able to anticipate that there would be problems ensuring everyone wasin place inside the venue in time to begin counting according to the plannedtimetable.


7

Recommendations

There are significant lessons for the Returning Officer to learn from theexperience of the count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets. We setout below our recommendations for the Returning Officer and others forplanning and managing future election counts in Tower Hamlets. Immediateand sustained action must be taken to provide reassurance to voters,candidates and campaigners that future election counts will be well-managedand efficiently delivered. We will monitor closely the response to theserecommendations, but we are also ready to provide support and advice to theReturning Officer to help ensure that he can deliver the improvements whichare required.

Our full recommendations are set out in detail in Chapter 4 of this report, andthe key areas are summarised below.

Ahead of the count for the Blackwall and Cubitt Town ward election onThursday 3 July the Commission recommends that:

The Returning Officer ensures all attendees at the count fully understandthe process for conducting the count and the standards of behaviourwhich are expected of them at all times.

The Police ensure that their plans for managing the public space outsidethe count venue enable people entitled to attend the count to enter andleave the venue freely and without obstruction.

The Returning Officer ensures that all verification and count processesare transparent and provide appropriate opportunities for those who areentitled to observe to object to doubtful ballot paper adjudicationdecisions.

Ahead of the scheduled Parliamentary General Election in May 2015 theCommission recommends that:

The Returning Officer publishes his overall plans for the management ofthe count at the 2015 Parliamentary General election by no later than the

beginning of December 2014, five months before polling day.

The Returning Officer consider all possible options for suitable venuesfor future counts, with space for sufficient numbers of count staff andothers entitled to attend. These details should also be published byDecember 2014.

For counting at all future elections:

To ensure transparency of communication between counting staff andother attendees at the count (including counting agents) the Returning

Officer should make clear in instructions to those attending any countthat any such communication should take place in English only.


8

Those attending the count should behave according to the rules set outin advance by the Returning Officer and should respect and immediatelyaccept the Returning Officers instructionsif he considers their behaviourunacceptable.

Following evaluation of the count on 3 July by the Returning Officer, we willcontinue to monitor closely the response to these recommendations betweennow and the UK Parliamentary general election in May 2015.

If we are not satisfied that sufficient progress towards addressing theserecommendations has been made by the end of September 2014 we willmake clear what more needs to be done, and what further action we will taketo support the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets to ensure that the countprocesses for future elections are well managed.


9

1 About this report

Following the European and local elections that took place on 22 May1.1

2014, the Electoral Commission announced a review of how the verificationand count for the elections in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets inLondon were administered.

The purpose of this review has been to understand why the count for the1.222 May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets took so long, and to identifyrecommendations for the management of future election counts in theborough.

We will reflect and consider wider concerns raised about the1.3administration and policing of the elections in Tower Hamlets in our statutory

report on the May 2014 elections, which we expect to publish by mid-July.

This review of the verification and count considers:1.4

The timeline of relevant events on 22-27 May.

Planning for the count, including the selection of the venue and the set-up arrangements for the count.

The count management approach, including the number of staff used.

The role played by counting agents and others attending the count.

The facilities available and the access to the count for mediarepresentatives.

Consideration of comparative information from other local authoritieswith similar count requirements.

We are aware that an election petition challenging the result of the1.5election for the mayor of Tower Hamlets was lodged with the High Court on 10June 2014. The petition includes complaints about/allegations of acts oromissions by the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and/or his officials inbreach of official duties under the Representation of the People Act 1983and/or under the Mayoral Elections (Combination of Polls) Rules, includingallegations relating to the appointment of counting agents, the attendance of

people not entitled to be present during the count and the impact of the largenumbers of the winning candidates supporters/agents attending the count onthe efficient separation of ballots and/or counting of votes by the ReturningOfficer. In light of this legal challenge we have amended the contents of thisreport to exclude any conclusions relating to the appointment and behaviourof counting agents and other attendees at the verification and count, to ensurethat our review does not prejudice the outcome of that challenge.

To inform this review, the Commission requested evidence from the1.6Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and held meetings to discuss the countwith both the Returning Officer and Regional Returning Officer for the

European Parliament election for the London region. We also contactedothers involved in the conduct of the count, including candidates and agents


10

and the police, to invite them to submit their views and evidence about theverification and count process. We received submissions and evidence from29 people, who are listed in Appendix A to this report. We have also drawn onthe direct observations of three Electoral Commission representatives whowere present during the verification and count between 7.15am and 11.15pm

on Friday 23 May.

We are grateful to all those who took the time to describe their1.7experiences and capture their views, including the Returning Officers and theirstaff from Hackney, Lewisham and Newham who provided comparative dataabout their own elections. We have summarised the points made in thosesubmissions in the analysis of the verification and count in Chapter 3 of thisreport.

The Electoral Commission has powers under section 10 of the Political1.8Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to give advice to Returning

Officers and other individuals or bodies in connection with our statutoryresponsibilities. We have set out in Chapter 4 our recommendations for theReturning Officer and others for planning and managing future election countsin Tower Hamlets. We have also set out our plans for monitoring the progressof the Returning Officer and others in responding to our recommendations.


11

2 Background to the May2014 elections in Tower

Hamlets

Managing election counts: roles and responsibilities

Returning OfficerReturning Officers (ROs) play a central role in the democratic process.2.1

Their role is to ensure that elections are administered effectively inaccordance with the statutory framework and that, as a result, the experience

of voters and those standing for election is a positive one.

Every county, district, unitary, metropolitan and London borough council2.2is required to appoint an officer of the council to be the RO for the election ofcouncillors to their local authority.

By virtue of appointment as the RO for principal area elections (which2.3include London Boroughs), the same person also acts as the RO for anyMayoral elections in the local authority and for the relevant counting areawithin the electoral region for European Parliamentary elections. ForEuropean Parliamentary elections, the counting area is defined as the local

government area.

Returning Officers are responsible under electoral law for the conduct of2.4the count. They have a statutory responsibility to make arrangements for thecounting of votes in the presence of counting agents as soon as practicableafter the close of the poll and must give the counting agents notice in writingof the time and place of the count.

The Commission produces detailed guidance to support ROs in making2.5arrangements for and managing the count. Our guidance states that ROsshould ensure that their verification and count arrangements can deliver the

following key principles for an effective verification and count:

All processes are transparent, with a clear and unambiguous audit trail.

The verification produces an accurate result. This means that thenumber of ballot papers in each box either matches the number of ballotpapers issued as stated on the ballot paper account or, if it does not:

the source of the variance has been identified and can beexplained; and/or

the box has been recounted at least twice, until the same number

of ballot papers is counted on two consecutive occasions.


12

The count produces an accurate result.

The verification and count are timely.

The secrecy of the vote is maintained at all times.

The security of ballot papers and other stationery is maintained at alltimes.

The count should be controlled by the RO, assisted by a Count2.6Manager. We recommend that one or more Deputy Returning Officers beformally appointed under the election rules to assist with adjudication ofdoubtful ballot papers and any other issues that might arise during the count.

Regional Returning OfficerAt European Parliamentary elections, Regional Returning Officers (of2.7

whom there are 12one for each electoral region of the UK) are responsiblefor the overall conduct of the election within their region and for collating andannouncing the regional result. They are also responsible for liaising with andcoordinating the work of local Returning Officers in the electoral region.

Counting assistantsCounting assistants are employed by the Returning Officer and are2.8

responsible for verifying and counting the votes after the close of poll.Counting assistants work in teams of varying sizes as designated by theReturning Officer.

Counting agentsCounting agents can be appointed by the candidate or agent to observe2.9

the verification and counting processes. Counting agents have a number ofimportant roles to play at the count:

They observe the counting process and make sure that it is accurate.

They can draw to the attention of count staff any doubtful ballot papers.

If they disagree with a decision by the Returning Officer to reject a ballot

paper, they can ask the Returning Officer to mark on the ballot paperrejection objected to.

If a count is suspended for any reason, counting agents can add theirseals when the Returning Officer seals the ballot boxes and envelopes.

The Returning Officer is permitted by law to limit the number of counting2.10agents, subject to the following:

the number that may be appointed by each candidate must be the same;and


13

unless there are special circumstances, the number of counting agentsmust not be less than the number obtained by dividing the number ofcounting assistants (i.e. those staff employed on the counting) by thenumber of candidates.

When determining the maximum number of counting agents each2.11candidate should, as far as possible, be permitted to appoint sufficientnumbers of counting agents to enable full and proper scrutiny of theverification and count processes. The Returning Officer should, however,consider any health and safety implications, including fire regulations for theverification and count venue, when deciding on maximum numbers ofcounting agents.

Candidates and agentsCandidates and their agents are entitled to attend the verification and2.12

count. One guest of each candidate may also attend the verification and

count.

Accredited observersObservers accredited by the Electoral Commission are entitled to2.13

observe the verification and counting of the votes.

Electoral Commission representativesElectoral Commission representatives may also observe proceedings at2.14

the verification and counting of votes.

Others

The legislation provides for ROs, at their discretion, to permit other2.15people to attend the proceedings if:

they are satisfied that it will not impede the verification or efficientcounting of votes; and

they have consulted the election agents, or thought it impracticable to doso.

It is important for the media to be given space and the opportunity to2.16report on the results. The RO has the discretion to decide which

representatives of the media are allowed to attend. As with all attendees, theRO must ensure that media representatives do not interfere with the processor compromise the secrecy of the vote.

Other people that the Returning Officer may at their discretion permit to2.17attend the count include the police and security staff.

Controlling admission to the countExcluding accredited observers and Commission representatives, our2.18

guidance recommends that tickets or entrance passes should be issued inadvance to everyone entitled to attend the count. We also advise that

Returning Officers should give consideration to issuing different-colouredtickets or passes to identify the different categories of attendees.


14

We recommend that Returning Officers should provide lists of those2.19persons entitled to attend at the entrance to the verification and count, andinstruct security staff/door attendants to check the passes of anyone seekingto attend. Electoral Commission representatives and accredited observers donot need to provide advance notification of where they intend to observe and

therefore may not appear on these lists; they are nevertheless entitled toaccess the verification and count venue on production of their observer orCommission representative identification badge.

Context for the May 2014 elections in TowerHamlets

Demographic profile of the boroughData from the 2011 census shows that Tower Hamlets is one of the most2.20

diverse local authority areas in the UK with more than 40% of residents who

were born outside the UK, including the countrys largest community ofresidents with historic or more recent family roots from Bangladesh. Thisdiverse national and ethnic background is reflected in the mixture of mainlanguages used by residents: in 2011 two thirds of residents used English astheir main or only language; 18 per cent used Bengali; and the remaining 16per cent used one of 90 different European or other international languages orgroups of languages.

Tower Hamlets also has the highest proportion of Muslim residents in2.21England (35 per cent compared with a national average of 5 per cent) and thelowest proportion of Christian residents in England (27 per cent compared

with a national average of 59 per cent). Count staff employed by the ReturningOfficer reflected the Boroughsoverall demographic diversity.

Political control of the local authorityThe previous elections for Tower Hamlets councillors took place in May2.22

2010. The overall result after those elections was an overall majority on thecouncil for the Labour party (41 out of 51 seats), as had been the case inTower Hamlets since the early 1990s. A local referendum held on the sameday as the May 2010 elections approved the introduction of a directly electedMayor for Tower Hamlets. Directly elected Mayors have powers to decide onthe size of the cabinet and appoint cabinet members (from the council), to

exercise all of the councils executive functionsand/or to decide how, and towhat extent, those functions are delegated. Mayors also propose the budgetand formulate significant policy framework plans, but amendment or rejectionof the proposals requires a two-thirds majority vote by the full council. Directlyelected Mayors have no powers in relation to the administration of elections orelectoral registration.

The first mayoral election in Tower Hamlets took place in October 2010,2.23and was won by Lutfur Rahman, who had previously been selected as theLabour Party candidate but who stood for election as an independentcandidate.


15

At the time of the May 2014 elections the Labour group of councillors2.24was still the largest political group on the council, although with a smallermajority than after the May 2010 elections, of one seat overall (26 out of 51councillors).

The May 2014 electionsThe number and size of wards for Tower Hamlets council were changed2.25

following a review by the Local Government Boundary Commission forEngland, and the May 2014 elections were the first using the new electoralarrangements. There were elections for a total of 45 seats in 20 wards (areduction from 51 seats in 17 wards), comprising a mixture of single-member,two-member and three-member wards. The boundaries of wards in theborough had also changed as a result of the review.

The May 2014 elections included three sets of polls:2.26

the election of Tower Hamlets councillors; the election of Tower Hamlets executive mayor;

the election of members of the European Parliament for the Londonelectoral region of the UK.

This was the first time that the election of Tower Hamlets councillors had2.27taken place on the same day as the election of the Tower Hamlets executivemayor. The local elections in 2010 had taken place on the same day as theUK Parliamentary general election.

The poll for the election of three members in one ward in the east of the2.28

borough, Blackwall & Cubitt Town, was countermanded following the death ofone of the candidates on the day before polling day. While the poll for theelection of members of the European Parliament for the London region andthe mayor of Tower Hamlets took place as scheduled on Thursday 22 May inBlackwall & Cubitt Town ward, the poll for the election of the three localcouncillors for the ward was postponed until Thursday 3 July.

Recommendations from previous elections in Tower HamletsFollowing a number of complaints and allegations made at previous2.29

elections in the borough, including at the local and mayoral elections in 2010,the London Mayoral and Assembly elections in 2012 and two local ward by-

elections in the same year, the Electoral Commission made a number ofrecommendations in March 2013 to all those involved in upholding theintegrity of elections in Tower Hamlets. The steps we identified were neededto rebuild confidence and trust between the key participants in the electionprocess and to reduce the risk that the May 2014 local and EuropeanParliament elections might be damaged by an inadequate response toallegations of electoral fraud. Tower Hamlets was also identified by theElectoral Commission prior to the May 2014 elections as one of 16 areasnationally which were at higher risk of allegations of electoral fraud.

In response to our recommendations, the Returning Officer put in place2.30a local protocol which represented a commitment by campaigners, individualsand organisations involved in the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets to


16

support electoral integrity.2The protocol was endorsed by the MetropolitanPolice Service and supported by the Electoral Commission, and was signedby representatives of all the political parties represented on the Council beforethe elections, with the exception of the local Conservative Party. The protocolset out agreed processes for reporting and investigating allegations of

electoral fraud in the period leading up to polling day, and also includedcommitments by campaigners not to handle postal vote applications or postalballot packs and to limit the number of campaigners outside polling stations onpolling day to no more than two per candidate.

In the months leading up to the May 2014 elections the Commission2.31closely monitored progress towards implementing our recommendations,meeting the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and the Metropolitan PoliceService regularly to review their plans and attending briefing meetings forprospective candidates.

In evidence submitted to us the Returning Officer acknowledged that2.32these additional measures, which were generally successful, neverthelessplaced extra demands on staff and systems which may have adverselyaffected the resources available for preparation of the count and venue.

Appointment of the Returning OfficerThe Returning Officer was appointed by the full council, in accordance2.33

with the Councils constitution, in January 2013. The Returning Officer, JohnWilliams is the Service Head for Democratic Services for Tower HamletsCouncil and has also been appointed by Tower Hamlets Council as theElectoral Registration Officer for Tower Hamlets.

The May 2014 elections were the first elections where John Williams had2.34been appointed as the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets, although he hadprevious experience of acting as Deputy Returning Officer in three localauthorities including Tower Hamlets. He appointed two Deputy ReturningOfficers for the verification and count for the May 2014 elections: the localauthoritys Legal Advisor; and the local authoritys Electoral Services Manager(an experienced electoral administrator who managed election counts inseveral London boroughs).

Venues for verification and the count for the May 2014 elections in

Tower HamletsVerification of the contents of ballot boxes for the May 2014 elections in2.35

Tower Hamlets and the count for the Tower Hamlets Mayoral and local wardelections was intended to take place from 8am on Friday 23 May 2014 at theTroxy, a venue on Commercial Road in Limehouse which was originally acinema. Ballot boxes were stored in a secure location at the Council officesovernight between the close of poll on Thursday 22 May and the verification

2Published on the Tower Hamlets Council website at

http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=7c3e44e1-1d9c-4b00-ab63-441afc9e6eb0&version=-1
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=7c3e44e1-1d9c-4b00-ab63-441afc9e6eb0&version=-1http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=7c3e44e1-1d9c-4b00-ab63-441afc9e6eb0&version=-1http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=7c3e44e1-1d9c-4b00-ab63-441afc9e6eb0&version=-1http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=7c3e44e1-1d9c-4b00-ab63-441afc9e6eb0&version=-1http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=7c3e44e1-1d9c-4b00-ab63-441afc9e6eb0&version=-1


17

and count on Friday 23 May, with a permanent police guard and a CCTV feedwhich agents were able to view if requested.

The count for the members of the European Parliament for the London2.36electoral region of the UK was intended to take place from 4pm on Sunday 25

May at the Mile End Leisure Centre. Following the verification on Friday 23May, ballot boxes containing the ballot papers for the European Parliamentelection were sealed in ballot boxes which were again stored in a securelocation at the Council offices until Sunday 25 May.

The final recount for Bromley South ward took place at the Town Hall,2.37Mulberry Place, on the evening of Tuesday 27 May. Ballot boxes containingthe ballot papers for the ward were again stored in a secure location at theCouncil offices until Tuesday 27 May.

Comparative information about other electioncounts in May 2014

Three other London boroughs had the same pattern of elections as2.38Tower Hamlets in May 2014. Hackney, Lewisham and Newham each hadelections for local councillors, executive mayors and members of theEuropean Parliament for the London electoral region of the UK. The number,size and boundaries of wards for Hackney council were changed following areview by the Boundary Commission for England, and the May 2014 electionswere the first using the new electoral arrangements.

We have collated data about those elections to provide some2.39comparative context for the scale and management of the count for the May2014 elections in Tower Hamlets, set out in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Comparative information about the election counts in fourLondon boroughs in May 2014

TowerHamlets

Hackney Lewisham Newham

Electorate 181,871 160,081 196,609 173,606

Turnout:EuropeanelectionLocal elections

50.8%47.6%

41.5%39.6%

38.9%37.2%

43.6%40.6%

Total number ofballot paperscounted

252,837 203,231 217,829 234,695

Number ofmayoralcandidates

10 5 7 8


18

TowerHamlets


Number ofwards

193 21 18 20

Number of ward

candidates 192

4

241 259 208Result ofMayoralelection

LutfurRahman(TowerHamlets First)elected with52.3%of thetotal first andvalid secondpreferencevotes cast (nocandidatereceivedmore than50% of firstpreferencevotes)

Jules Pipe(LabourParty)elected with60.4%of firstpreferencevotes cast(no secondpreferencecountrequired)

SteveBullock(LabourParty)elected with50.8%of firstpreferencevotes cast(no secondpreferencecountrequired)

Sir RobinWales(LabourParty)elected with61.2%of firstpreferencevotes cast(no secondpreferencecountrequired)

Overall result oflocal councilelections5

Labour: 20THF6: 18Cons: 4

Labour: 43Cons: 4Lib Dem: 3

Labour: 53Green: 1

Labour: 60

Number ofrecounts 6 wards fullyrecounted 1 wardbundlecheck7

None None

Number of (i)countingassistants and(ii) supervisorsfor verificationand localcounts

(i) 180

(ii) 18

(i) 200

(ii) 30

(i) 96

(ii) 15

(i) 200

(ii) 40

3Not including Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward, where the poll was countermanded after the

death of a candidate.4Excluding the 12 candidates who were validly nominated for the poll in Blackwall & Cubitt

Town ward.5At the time of publication the election of three members for Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward

had not taken place, as a result of the death of a candidate on the day before the scheduledpolling day on 22 May 2014.6

Tower Hamlets First.7A check of the counted bundles of ballot papers rather than a full recount.


19

TowerHamlets


Number of (i)countingassistants and

(ii) supervisorsfor Europeanelection count

(i) 64

(ii) 8

(i) 100

(ii) 20

(i) 96

(ii) 15

(i) 40

(ii) 8

Verificationstart and finishtimes

10.3023 May- 18.0023 May

9.0023 May- 14.0023 May

08.3023 May- 16.3023 May

22.0022 May- 05.3023 May

Mayoral countstart and finishtimes

18.3023 May- 01.1524 May

14.4523 May- 20.0023 May

17.3023 May- 19.3023 May

09.0023 May- 13.0023 May

Local countstart and finishtimes

01.4524 May- 09.0024 May

(recountscontinued26 and 27

May,

concludingat 21.30 27May)

14.4523 May- 21.3023 May

20.3023 May- 03.0024 May

14.3023 May- 18.0023 May

European countstart and finishtimes

14.3025 May- 02.3026 May

14:0025 May- 19:3025 May

12.3025 May- 17:3225 May

14:3025 May- 20:3025 May

In his evidence to us the Returning Officer has also highlighted several2.40

other factors which he considered increased the complexity of the count forTower Hamlets compared with these other boroughs. These include theproportion of local election ballot papers for multi-member wards on whichvotes were cast for candidates representing more than one party (which couldnot be counted as easily as those on which all votes were cast for candidatesrepresenting the same party): in Tower Hamlets the Returning Officerestimated that more than 50% of all local election ballot papers included suchsplit votes; in Lewisham, the Returning Officer has estimated thatapproximately 45% of local election ballot papers included split votes.

The Returning Officer has also highlighted the closeness of the results2.41

for the local ward elections in Tower Hamlets compared with the otherboroughs. In Tower Hamlets the margin between the last winning candidate


20

and the next candidate was fewer than 60 votes in seven wards (includingmargins of 10 votes or fewer in three wards). In Hackney, two wards hadwinning margins of fewer than 25 votes, but the next smallest margin wasover 300 votes and the winning margin was more than 1,000 votes in 12wards; in Lewisham two wards had winning margins of fewer than 65 votes,

but the next smallest margin was over 180 votes and the winning margin wasmore than 1,000 votes in five wards; and in Newham the smallest winningmargin was 680 votes and the winning margin was more than 1,000 votes in16 wards.


21

3 Analysis of verificationand count processes

Summary of key points during the verification andcount process which were delayed

Based on data provided by the Returning Officer and observations from3.1others who submitted evidence to this review, we have identified the followingkey points during the verification and count which were delayed:

Starting verification:The process of opening ballot boxes andbeginning the verification of the contents against the ballot paperaccounts started approximately two and a half hours later than planned.

Verification: The process of verifying the contents of ballot boxesagainst the ballot paper accounts took approximately one and a halfhours longer than planned.

Mayoral first preference count: The process of counting the firstpreference votes for the Mayoral election took approximately two and ahalf hours longer than planned.

Mayoral second preference count: The process of counting thesecond preference votes for the Mayoral election took nearly an hourlonger than planned.

Local authority ward counts: The process of counting the votes for thelocal authority ward elections took place over three separate sessionsbetween the early hours of Saturday 24 May and the evening of Tuesday27 May. Overall, including recounts, the process of counting the votesfor the local authority wards took approximately 23 and a half hours,8significantly longer than the scheduled duration of six hours.

European Parliamentary count: Overall, the process of counting thevotes for the European Parliament election (which took place alongsideunexpected local election recounts) took seven and a half hours longerthan originally planned.

8

Comprising nine hours between Friday 23 and Saturday 24 May; 12 hours between Sunday25 and Monday 26 May; and two and a half hours on Tuesday 27 May.


22

Detailed timeline of the verification and countprocess

We asked the Returning Officer to provide an analysis of the time taken3.2

for each stage of the verification and count process, compared with theexpected timings based on his plan. The information provided by theReturning Officer is summarised in Figure 1 below. Submissions we receivedas part of this review, together with the direct observations of Commissionrepresentatives, indicate that this is an accurate reflection of the time taken tocomplete the relevant stages of the verification and count process.


23

Figure 1: Detailed timeline of the verification and count process provided by the Returning Officer

Stage Venue Plannedtime

Actualtime

Comments

Verification

start (all 3

elections)

Troxy 08.00

Friday 23

May

10.30

Friday 23

May

Verification start delayed by almost 2.5 hours due to: Returning Officers

security arrangements which caused to delays in processing entry of

agents, guests and media representatives into the count venue;

integrity/assurance arrangements put in place by the Returning Officer for

monitoring transfer of ballot boxes from secure storage to the count venueand enabling agents to check numerous personal/party seals on ballot

boxes before they were opened.

Verification

end

Troxy 14.00

Friday 23

May

18.00

Friday 23

May

Once underway, the verification process took 1.5 hours longer than

planned. This delay was due mainly to higher than anticipated turnout and

failure (because of the delayed start to verification) to complete verification

before the scheduled breaks for counting staff lunch and Friday prayers.

Mayoral

election

count start

Troxy 14.15

Friday 23

May

18.30

Friday 23

May

The Mayoral count started approximately 4 hours later than planned, as a

result of the original delay to commencing the verification and the additional

length of the verification process.

Mayoral

election

count

declaration

Troxy 1st

preference

count:

16.30

Friday 23

May

2nd

preference

1st

preference

count:

23.30

Friday 23

May

2nd

preference

The first preference count took considerably longer than planned (5 hours

vs. 2.25 hours), due to factors including: higher than planned numbers of

ballot papers, and numerous challenges to count adjudication leading to

high numbers of papers (total rejected over 2,300) being referred for RO

adjudication.

The Mayoral count was then extended further by the need for a 2nd

preference count, which took nearly an hour longer to complete than

planned. Again, there were numerous challenges and adjudications before


24


Actualtime

Comments

count (if

required):

17.30

Friday 23

May

count:

01.15

Saturday

24 May

the result was declared.

Council

contests

count start

Troxy c. 17.45

Friday 23

May

01.45

Saturday

24 May

Following the post-declaration speeches of the Mayoral candidates (20-30

minutes), there was a further brief delay while the RO consulted agents,

candidates and staff on whether, given the late hour, to postpone the

Council counts until 9.00 on Saturday morning. The overwhelming

consensus of all was not to postpone the count, and to carry on counting

overnight. The Council counts therefore started approximately 8 hours later

than planned. Counts for all wards started at the same time.

Council

contests

count end

Troxy 11.59

Friday 23

May

09.00

Saturday

24 May

Recounts

continued

from 09.00

to 11.00

Saturday

Once underway, the Council counts took approx. 1.25 hours longer than

planned (7.25 hrs vs 6.00 hrs) due to (i) higher than planned numbers of

ballot papers; (ii) conduct of agents and candidates requiring intervention

by the Returning Officers staff; and (iii) very high levels of split votes

(where votes on ballot papers for multi-member wards were cast for

candidates from more than one party) which need to be tallied individually

rather than counting ballot papers with blocks of votes for candidates allfrom the same party.

Declarations for 13 of the 19 individual ward counts continued from 04.00 to

09.00 on Saturday 24 May. Recounts were undertaken for the other six

wards, but the results of those recounts were not accepted by agents.

These recounts were suspended at 11.00 on Saturday 24 May, and


25


Actualtime

Comments

24 May scheduled to recommence on Sunday 25 May.

Ballot boxes for the unfinished ward counts were re-sealed and transferred

back to the Town Hall in a lorry, escorted by the Returning Officers staff,

and locked in a secure area overnight.

European

Parliamentcount start

Mile End

LeisureCentre

16.00

Sunday 25May

16.00

Sunday 25May

This session was planned to count only the European Parliamentary

papers. Due to six ward contest recounts also being required, the start timewas brought forward at short notice to 14.00 and staff were asked to attend

at 13.30. Access to the venue was available from 13.00 and in the event

the count floor was operational from c.14.30.

After the original planned start time of 16.00, the Returning Officer

prioritised the count for the European Parliament elections in an attempt to

adhere to the agreed timetable but kept a small number of teams counting

local papers in order that they were not all deferred until the end, when he

considered that staff would be tired and mistakes more likely.

Council

contests

recounts

start

Mile End

Leisure

Centre

- 14.30

Sunday 25

May

Sealed ballot boxes for the six unfinished ward counts were transferred by

the Returning Officers staff to Mile End Leisure Centre on Sunday 25 May.

The ward recounts were subject to intense pressure from counting agentswho challenged numerous papers and adjudications and quarrelled

amongst themselves to the extent that on a number of occasions counts

had to be stopped while crowds were moved away from tables.


26


Actualtime

Comments

European

Parliament

count end

Mile End

Leisure

Centre

19.00

Sunday 25

May

02.30

Monday 26

May

Despite beginning the count earlier than planned and attempting to

prioritise the count for the European Parliament election, the count took

significantly longer than anticipated (10 and a half hours overall, compared

with 3 hours originally planned).

European

Parliament

count

declaration

Mile End

Leisure

Centre

22.00

Sunday 25

May

02.40

Monday 26

May

Council

contest

recounts

end

Mile End

Leisure

Centre

- 02.40

Monday 26

May

Five of the six unfinished ward recounts were agreed and declared by

02.40 on Monday 26 May, but the recount for the final ward (Bromley

South) was not accepted by agents. This recount was suspended and, with

the agreement of the Returning Officer and all candidates and election

agents, was scheduled to recommence at 7pm on Tuesday 27 May, to

allow candidates, agents and count staff to attend without taking leave from

their normal employment duties.

The ballot box for the final unfinished recount was re-sealed and

transferred back to the Town Hall by the Returning Officer and locked in a

secure area until Tuesday 27 May. The Returning Officer requested tostore the ballot box at Limehouse police station until Tuesday evening, but

the police did not agree to this request.


27


Actualtime

Comments

Final council

contest

recount

Town

Hall,

Mulberry

Place

- 19.00 to

21.30

Tuesday

27 May

The sealed ballot box for the final ward recount was transferred by the

Returning Officer to the room used for the recount in the Town Hall.

The final ward result was declared by 21.30 on Tuesday 27 May.

The following sections set out our analysis of the issues which appear to have contributed directly to the delay in3.3completing the counts for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets.


28

Summary of issues at the count which appear tohave contributed directly to the delay

Inadequate management of entry to the count venue

There were significant delays in allowing entry to the count venue on3.4Friday 23 May for both count staff and those entitled to attend as candidates,agents or other guests and observers. The Returning Officer has reported thatmany agents, guests and media representatives did not bring their letter ofinvitation or accreditation with them, adding to the delays in accessing thevenue.

The Returning Officer was required by law to open the ballot boxes in3.5the presence of any counting agents who were in attendance at the count.Given the significant focus of candidates, agents and the media on theintegrity of the election process in Tower Hamlets, with many placing personal

seals on ballot boxes, the Returning Officer was reluctant to begin thisprocess without their involvement.

While this was a sensible and reasonable approach to take in the3.6context of the significant degree of mistrust between campaigners at theelections, the Returning Officer appears not to have anticipated or put in placeadequate plans to minimise the significant practical implications of providingthis level of transparency in a venue with such limited access capacity.

Planning based on overly optimistic assumptions about the speed ofcounting

Several submissions expressed scepticism about the timetable originally3.7planned for the verification and count on Friday 23 May, highlighting concernsthat the plans were overly optimistic given the expected high turnout and thecloseness of both the Mayoral election and many of the individual wardcontests.

While tiredness of count staff and other attendees at the count may have3.8had an impact on the number of recounts required for individual ward contestsduring the early hours of Saturday 24 May and during the evening of Sunday25 May to Monday 26 May, some requests for recounts should have beenexpected in any event, given the range of known factors including changes to

local ward boundaries, the large numbers of candidates standing in manywards and the generally hard-fought election campaign.

Relative to the number of ballot papers included in the verification and3.9count on Friday 23 May, the number of counting staff employed for theverification and the count for Tower Hamlets appears to have been slightlylower than the number of counting staff employed in both Hackney andNewham. In Lewisham, the third London borough with the same pattern ofelections as Tower Hamlets in May 2014, there were fewer counting staffrelative to the number of ballot papers than in Tower Hamlets.

In his evidence to us, the Returning Officer explained that the number of3.10counting assistants was determined by the size of the venue, which was the


29

largest the Returning Officer was able to identify in the borough on 23 May.The Returning Officer had drawn up a detailed space plan for the venue tomaximise the number of staff that could be accommodated.

Insufficiently responsive management during the count

Several submissions from people attending the count described3.11relatively lengthy periods during which large numbers of count staff appearednot to be carrying out any significant activity. In his evidence to us, theReturning Officer acknowledged that, while a certain amount of inactivity wasan inevitable part of the normal counting process (for example while the countfigures of the various teams counting a ward were all finalised and thentotalled), more count supervisors should have been employed to ensure theefficient conduct of the count.

While it may not be realistic to expect all count staff to be fully utilised at3.12every stage of the verification and count process, a more responsive

management plan which monitored activity levels and allowed for reallocationof activity could have reduced the length of time taken to complete key stagesof the process.

Submissions also identified concerns that the Returning Officer did not3.13appear to have in place a realistic contingency plan for dealing with delays tothe count process, or appeared unwilling to consider alternatives toproceeding with the count for the local authority ward contests afterconcluding the mayoral election count at approximately 01.30am on Saturday24 May (such as suspending counting for several hours until 9am thefollowing day).

In his evidence to us, however, the Returning Officer refuted this3.14suggestion and explained that he had in fact consulted widely with localelection candidates and agents and count staff about whether to exercise hisauthority to suspend the count for the local ward contests until 9am onSaturday 24 May. The near unanimous view from that consultation was thatcounting the local ward contests should continue overnight. The ReturningOfficer consulted appropriately and took proper account of the views ofcandidates, agents and count staff in reaching his decision. While he couldnot have known at that point exactly how long the local counts would take, theReturning Officer might reasonably have anticipated that they would take

significantly longer to complete than planned, given the length of theverification and mayoral election counts.

Adjudication approachIn his evidence to us the Returning Officer explained that he had initially3.15

sought to manage the adjudication of doubtful ballot papers in an open andtransparent way, with Deputy Returning Officers instructed to refer anydisputed adjudication decisions to him for a final decision rather thanattempting to reach agreement with counting agents themselves. While thisapproach rightly focused responsibility for making important decisions at theappropriate level of the statutory officer holder rather than any Deputies, it didappear to lead to a bottle-neck at the end of each count. This degree ofcomplete personal control and responsibility is, in our experience, relatively


30

unusual for Returning Officers at UK elections, although it was notunreasonable for the Returning Officer to take this approach in the specificcircumstances and context of the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets.

The Returning Officer stated that when it became obvious that the large3.16

number of doubtful ballot papers could cause a delay to the completion of thecount, he passed responsibility for adjudication to his two Deputy ReturningOfficers as well. Nevertheless, the approach taken is likely to have contributedsignificantly to the delay at the end of the first and second preference stagesof the count for the mayoral election, when the Returning Officer was requiredpersonally to adjudicate on a significant number of doubtful ballots.

Number of recounts for local electionsThe number of recounts requested during the count for the local ward3.17

contests in Tower Hamlets was significantly higher than in the three otherLondon boroughs which had the same pattern of elections in May 2014.

Comparative information shows that recounts were only requested for oneward in Hackney, which was resolved by a check of the counted bundles ofballot papers rather than a full recount. Given the political context for theelections, however, the likelihood of requests for recounts should have beenanticipated and included in the Returning Officers planning assumptions.

The Returning Officer and several submissions also identified that the3.18decision to attempt to recount six local ward contests both before andalongside the European Parliament count during the afternoon and evening ofSunday 25 May (despite the fact that staff agreed at short notice to attend thevenue earlier than planned) undoubtedly had an impact on the duration of the

European Parliament count, particularly since the Returning Officer had notanticipated this change in his original planning and staffing assumptions.

Summary of other issues at the count

Selection of venueSeveral submissions queried whether the venue chosen for the3.19

verification and the count on Friday 23 May was big enough to accommodateall the count staff and other people entitled to attend. The Returning Officerhas indicated that, while he considered other venues, there were no larger

alternative venues available for use on 23 May within the borough.

A majority of submissions were critical of the suitability of the3.20refreshment and toilet facilities available at the count venue during Friday 23to Saturday 24 May, while recognising that those facilities would probablyhave been adequate if the count had concluded within the plannedtimescales.

The Returning Officer has also recognised that the venue used on3.21Sunday 25 May (which had originally been selected for the count for theEuropean Parliament election alone) was not ideally suited to conducting

recounts for the local authority ward contests alongside the count for theEuropean Parliament elections.


31

Security outside the venue on Friday 23 and Saturday 24 MayThe majority of submissions recognised that there was no actual3.22

disorder outside the count venue during the evening of Friday 23 May and theearly hours of Saturday 24 May, but the atmosphere inside the count venuewas undoubtedly affected by presence outside the venue of a large number of

people who appeared to be supporters of one of the Mayoral electioncandidates.

While a small number of supporters had been present outside the count3.23venue during the day on Friday 23 May, the number appeared to increasesignificantly during the evening, leading to a peak between approximately10pm and 2am. The local police attempted to manage access to the venueduring this period, including taking steps on several occasions to temporarilyrestrict entry to and exit from the venue for limited periods of time. Severalsubmissions described concerns expressed by candidates and their agentsand guests who wanted to leave the count venue during the late evening on

Friday 23 May and who were warned by the venue security staff and policethat they might not be able to be readmitted to the venue.

The safety of people inside and outside the venue was quite properly a3.24priority for the Returning Officer and the police. While there is no evidencethat people were prevented for any significant length of time from leaving thevenue during the evening of Friday 23 May, it is unacceptable that people whowere entitled to attend in order to observe the count process may have beenunable to be guaranteed readmission to the venue if they chose to leaveduring this period.

Behaviour of attendees at the countSeveral submissions raised serious concerns about the behaviour of3.25

some attendees at the count, including candidates, election agents, countingagents and candidates guests. These included examples ofcounting staffbeing put under pressure by counting agents, attendees using mobile phonesand attendees encroaching on the counting tables. In his evidence to us theReturning Officer highlighted that he had to intervene to address severalinstances of unacceptable behaviour, including to insist that only appointedcounting agents were allowed in the seats made available for them tochallenge doubtful ballot paper adjudications.

The Returning Officer has also stated that he removed two teams of3.26counting assistants from the local council ward recounts on Sunday 25 Mayfollowing allegations that they had spoken in an overly friendly way to theMayor, who had been re-elected following the count on Thursday 23 to Friday24 May. Several submissions also expressed concern about some countingagents and other attendees talking to count staff in Bengali, which meant thatother observers could not understand what had been said. While theReturning Officer reported in his evidence to us that he had seen no evidencethat improper conduct had taken place between count staff and attendees atthe count, he had taken steps to address concerns about the potential forimproper conduct in the interests of maintaining confidence in the process.This included instructing all count staff not to engage with candidates andagents.


32

Several submissions from other attendees including candidates and3.27election agents, however, highlighted little or no concern about this aspect ofthe count.

Several submissions also identified concerns about the control of access3.28

by attendees within the count on Friday 23 and Saturday 24 May, includingaccess by representatives of the media. They suggested that some attendeeshad entered without properly showing proof of their entitlement to attend, orhad been given incorrect identification badges (which were intended to identifywhether they were counting agents, candidates, or candidates guests).Submissions also identified concerns that this also appeared to have been asignificant issue on Sunday 25 May, particularly as the Returning Officer hadnot originally planned to use the Mile End Sports Centre to carry out recountsfor the local authority ward contests alongside the count for the EuropeanParliament elections.

In his evidence to us, the Returning Officer responded that access to the3.29count venues was strictly controlled, and acknowledged that the stringency ofthis process was one of the reasons for overall delays to the verification andcount. He highlighted that candidates were in some cases allowed tosubstitute counting agents for those originally nominated, but that this was ona one-for-one basis which did not increase the total number of people entitledto attend the verification and count. The Returning Officer also stated that heexcluded one candidate from the local ward election recount on Sunday 25May because of their unacceptable conduct the previous day, and that thesecurity arrangements in place meant that the individual was not at any pointable to enter the count venue.

In light of the legal challenge to the result of the election for the mayor of3.30Tower Hamlets which has been lodged with the High Court we have notsought in this report to draw any conclusions relating to the appointment andbehaviour of counting agents and other attendees at the verification andcount, to ensure that our review does not prejudice the outcome of thatchallenge.

Accuracy of counts and recountsSeveral submissions highlighted concerns about the capability of count3.31

staff at various stages during the verification and count process. Somesubmissions gave examples of more junior count staff appearing not to fullyunderstand the process, in particular dealing with spilt votes (where ballotpapers included votes for candidates from more than one political party), andalso completing the tally sheets used to verify count totals.

Given that count staff were present at the count venue for more than 243.32hours between Friday 23 May and Saturday 24 May, and that many countstaff had also worked a long day as polling station staff on Thursday 22 May,it is likely that tiredness would have had an impact on their ability to countaccurately and consistently, particularly during the ward contest recountswhich took place towards the end of the session in the morning of Saturday 24May. Many submissions from candidates and their agents expressed


33

sympathy with and concern for the welfare of the count staff during this longperiod.

Several submissions described specific concerns about the accuracy of3.33the initial count and subsequent recounts for the Island Gardens ward,

suggesting that the total number of votes counted appeared to differsubstantially from the verification figure after the first count.

In evidence submitted to us the Returning Officer provided an3.34explanation for this apparent discrepancy, which resulted from an error intotalling the count figures from one of the teams of count staff working on theIsland Gardens ward count. The Returning Officer has explained that thiserror was picked up through the normal process of comparing the count totalswith the verification total, and the ballot papers for the ward were countedagain from scratch before the provisional results were officially shared with thecandidates and their agents; following that process there was a variance of

one ballot paper from the original verification total. The result was so closethat the Returning Officer nevertheless accepted a request to conduct afurther recount of the ward, which took place and was concluded on Sunday25 May, with agents accepting the result.

One submission also identified specific concerns about the accuracy of3.35the initial count and subsequent recounts for St Peters ward, suggesting thatcount totals for individual candidates changed significantly between the initialcount which concluded at approximately 9.30am on Saturday 24 May and thesubsequent recount held on Sunday 25 May. The submission also allegedthat seals placed on the ballot boxes containing the ballot papers overnight

between 23 and 24 May appeared to have been tampered with and opened.

In evidence submitted to us the Returning Officer provided an3.36explanation for the apparent discrepancy in count totals, and also sought torebut the allegation that ballot box seals had been tampered with and opened.The Returning Officer stated that following the conclusion of the first count forthe election of three members for St Peters ward at approximately 9.30am onSaturday 24 May, the difference between the candidates in third and fourthplace was small and he received and agreed to a proper request for a recountmade by one of the appointed election agents. The Returning Officerexplained to the candidates and agents present that, given the length of the

count at that point, the recount would not take place immediately but wouldtake place on Sunday 25 May at the venue for the European Parliamentcount. The ballot boxes were sealed and stored overnight in a secure locationat the Council offices until Sunday 25 May.

The Returning Officer has reported in his evidence to us that no3.37election agents or candidates raised concerns with him about seals placed onballot boxes (for example that they had been broken at the time the ballotboxes were reopened on Sunday 25 May). He has also highlighted that therewere two candidates (standing on behalf of different political parties) withexactly the same surname, who therefore appeared adjacent to one anotheron the ballot paper. The Returning Officer stated that he instructed countingstaff at the recount to call out the full names of the candidates when recording


34

mixed votes. There was a change in the total votes counted for these twocandidates between the first count and the recount, suggesting that the initialcount totals had not been accurate. The Returning Officer also reported in hisevidence to us that the result of the recount was not challenged by any agentor candidate before it was declared.

We have asked the Returning Officer to provide further detailed data3.38about verification, count and recount totals, which we will continue to analyseto help identify any specific lessons which could be learned for future counts.

Communication by the Returning Officer during the countSeveral submissions were critical of communication by the Returning3.39

Officer during the verification and count. While Electoral Commissionrepresentatives observed good communication during the early stages of theverification and the count for the Mayoral election, submissions highlightedconcerns that long periods of time passed during later stages of the count with

no update from the Returning Officer. The apparent absence ofcommunication about the progress of the count is likely to have exacerbatedconcerns about the process itself.


35

4 Conclusions andrecommendations

Having considered the comments and evidence submitted to us as part4.1of this review, we have identified two primary factors which appear to havecaused the overall delay in completing the counts for the May 2014 electionsin Tower Hamlets:

Access to the count venue on Friday 23 May:delays in allowing countstaff and those entitled to attend the verification and count meant thatverification was delayed by approximately two and a half hours.

Inadequate resource management during the verification and counton Friday 23 May and Saturday 24 May, and on Sunday 25 May: inaddition to the significant delay to the start of the verification process onFriday 23 May, the number of count staff available was insufficient eitherto recover from the initial delay or to manage the number of ballot papersto be verified and counted within the Returning Officers plannedtimetable.

By the time the count for the council wards began at 1am on Saturday4.224 May count staff (and those attending to observe the count as candidates oragents) had been present at the venue for more than 17 hours. Fatigue and

subsequent errors by count staff meant that further delays during the localelection counts, including those caused by requests for recounts, weresignificantly more frequent and were also likely to have magnified the overalldelay to the completion of the count.

Underlying both of these main factors were plans for the management of4.3the verification and count on Friday 23 May which proved inadequate for thenumber of ballot papers to be counted and the intense focus of candidatesand agents on the count process. Given the context for the elections,summarised in Chapter 2 of this report, the Returning Officer should haveanticipated many of the factors which appeared to have contributed to the

length of the count.

Notwithstanding the difficulty in identifying a larger venue within the4.4borough for the verification and count, a realistic assessment of the potentialfor higher than average turnout in such a close and hard-fought contestshould have identified the need for more staff in order to meet the ReturningOfficers planned schedule. Likewise, given the large number of count staffand other attendees expected to enter the count venue through a relativelysmall foyer area, the Returning Officer should have been able to anticipatethat there would be problems ensuring everyone was in place inside thevenue in time to begin counting according to the planned timetable.


36

Recommendations

There are significant lessons for the Returning Officer to learn from the4.5experience of the count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets. We setout below our recommendations for the Returning Officer and others forplanning and managing future election counts in Tower Hamlets. Immediateand sustained action must be taken to provide reassurance to voters,candidates and campaigners that future election counts will be well-managedand efficiently delivered. We will monitor closely the response to theserecommendations, but we are also ready to provide support and advice to theReturning Officer to help ensure that he can deliver the improvements whichare required.

Overall planning and management approach

The Returning Officer should ensure that plans for the resourcing and deliveryof the count are based on realistic and robust assumptions about key factors,including turnout, the number of candidates and the speed and capability ofcount staff. Plans should identify the expected timing for completion of allstages of the count, and should be flexible enough to be revised to reflectchanges if those assumptions change.

The Returning Officer should consult local political parties, electedrepresentatives and prospective candidates in developing his plans for theresourcing and delivery of future election counts, to help build confidence inhis proposed approach.

The Returning Officer should ensure that there is a contingency plan in placefor managing the count if the original plan is no longer sufficient, includingwhat actions will be taken if the count process is taking longer to completethan planned. The Returning Officer should identify key points during thecount processincluding commencement and completion of the verificationstageat which he will review progress against the expected schedule. Thisprogress review should be used to inform a realistic assessment of thelikelihood of delivering the overall plan for the count, and whether and when itmay be necessary to implement contingency plans.

The Returning Officer is responsible in law for the conduct of the count. Hemust make clear to all other participants that he alone is responsible formanaging the count, while acknowledging the important statutory role of thoseentitled to observe and formally object to decisions by the Returning Officer toreject doubtful ballots.

The Returning Officer should make clear on what basis he will make decisionsabout the management of the count, including any decision to suspend thecount. This should include identifying in advance those decisions which mustbe taken in consultation and agreement with candidates or election agents,such as suspending the count during the specified hours.

The Returning Officer should ensure that detailed plans for the resourcing anddelivery of future counts are reviewed by a selection of other Returning


37

Officers with relevant experience, particularly including running elections inLondon, to ensure that planning assumptions and the overall managementapproach for the count are appropriate and robust.

The Returning Officer should begin planning for the May 2015 UK

Parliamentary general election immediately after the conclusion of thecountermanded poll in Blackwall and Cubitt Town ward on 3 July 2014,and should aim to publish his overall plans for the management of thecount by no later than the beginning of December 2014, five monthsbefore polling day.

Size and suitability of count venues

The Returning Officer should consider all possible options for identifying

suitable venues for future counts, with space for sufficient numbers of countstaff and others entitled to attend, including:

Considering venues located outside the borough.

Where multiple elections are held on the same day, consideringconducting counts consecutively, rather than simultaneously.

Where multiple elections are held on the same day, consideringconducting counts in more than one venue.

The Returning Officer should consult locally on possible options, taking intoaccount views from local political parties, elected representatives, the police

and others, before publishing details of the proposed venue and approach forfuture counts and clearly communicating the basis for the proposed approach.

The Returning Officer should aim to conclude consultation and publishdetails of the count venue as part of his overall plans for themanagement of the count no later than the beginning of December 2014,five months before polling day for the May 2015 UK Parliamentarygeneral election.

Transparency of verification and count processes

The Returning Officer should ensure that all verification and count processesare transparent and provide appropriate opportunities for those who areentitled to observe and to object to doubtful ballot paper adjudicationdecisions. This should include ensuring that bundles of counted ballot papersare stored in full sight of counting agents in a way which allows them tomonitor progress of the count.

To ensure transparency of communication between counting staff and otherattendees at the count (including counting agents) the Returning Officershould make clear in instructions to those attending the count that anyquestions should be communicated via count supervisors rather than counting


38

assistants, and that any such communication should take place in Englishonly.

The Returning Officer should ensure that the process for adjudicating doubtfulballot papers is transparent and clearly understood by those entitled to

observe and formally object to the Returning Officers decision to reject aballot paper. The Returning Officer should hold specific briefing sessions toexplain and demonstrate the adjudication process to candidates, electionagents and counting agents, using materials developed and provided by theElectoral Commission for use by all Returning Officers, including doubtfulballot paper placemats.

The Returning Officer should ensure that progress of the verification andcount process is communicated to all attendees, providing regular updatesthroughout the process.

The Returning Officer should ensure that these recommendations areimplemented at the count for the election in Blackwall & Cubitt Townward on 3 July 2014. Following evaluation of the count on 3 July by theReturning Officer, any further modifications to the verification and countprocess should be included in planning for the May 2015 elections.

Behaviour and management of attendees at the count

The Returning Officer should ensure that all attendees at the count, including

candidates, their guests, election agents, counting agents and the media, arebriefed on and fully understand the process for conducting the count and thestandards of behaviour which are expected of them at all times. This shouldaim to ensure that count staff are able to carry out verification and countactivities without interference from counting agents and other observers,including leaning over or onto count tables or distracting count staff byspeaking loudly with them or among themselves. This should also includeappropriate restrictions on the use of mobile phones in the count venue toensure the secrecy of votes on ballot papers during the count.

The Returning Officer is ultimately responsible for managing behaviour and

maintaining order during the count, and has the authority to exclude anyonefrom the count venue if their behaviour interferes with the effective conduct ofthe count. The Returning Officer should make clear in both written and face-to-face briefings for attendees at the count how this authority will be used andenforced, including excluding attendees from the count venue if theirbehaviour interferes with the effective conduct of the count. Attendees at thecount who have been briefed on standards of acceptable behaviour shouldrespect and immediately accept the Returning Officers instructions.

The Police should ensure that their plans for managing the public spaceoutside the count venue will enable people entitled to attend the count to enter

and leave the venue freely and without obstruction.


39

The Returning Officer and the Metropolitan Police Service should ensurethat these recommendations are implemented at the count for theelection in Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward on 3 July 2014. Followingevaluation of the count on 3 July by the Returning Officer and theMetropolitan Police Service, any further modifications to plans for

managing the venue and attendees at the count should be included inplanning for the May 2015 elections.

Monitoring progress in Tower Hamlets

We recognise that the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets will need to4.6work with others to develop and deliver plans in response to theserecommendations. We are pleased that he has already taken steps to learnlessons from the experience of the May 2014 elections to improve the countfor the election in Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward on 3 July 2014, including

moving the count to a bigger venue to reflect the increased number ofcandidates standing for election and seeking consultancy advice from anotherexperienced Returning Officer on his approach to managing the count.Following evaluation of the count on 3 July by the Returning Officer, we willcontinue to monitor closely the response to these recommendations betweennow and the UK Parliamentary general election in May 2015.

If we are not satisfied that sufficient progress towards addressing these4.7recommendations has been made by the end of September 2014 we willmake clear what more needs to be done, and what further action we will taketo support the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets to ensure that the count

processes for future elections are well managed.

We will also use our powers to attend and observe at polling stations4.8and the count for the Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward election on 3 July 2014,and will also observe polling stations and the count for any other unscheduledelections between now and May 2015.


40

Appendix A: Submissions toour review

List of respondents who submitted evidence

Returning Officers

John Williams, Returning Officer for London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Barry Quirk, Regional Returning Officer for the London region for theEuropean Parliament elections

Candidates

John Biggs, Labour Party Mayoral candidate

Christopher Wilford, Conservative Party Mayoral candidate

Gloria Thienel, Conservative Party candidate for Island Gardens Ward

Matthew Smith, Conservative Party candidate for Bow West Ward

Sanu Miah, Labour Party candidate for St Peters Ward

Elected representatives

Cllr Peter Golds, Conservative Party

Cllr Andrew Wood, Conservative Party

Cllr Julia Dockerill, Conservative Party

Cllr Shafiqul Haque, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Abjol Miah, Tower Hamlets First Cllr Abdul Asad, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Aminur Khan, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Suluk Ahmed, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Gulam Kibria, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Ansar Mustaquim, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Shah Alam, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Harun Miah, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Shafiqul Haque, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Rabina Khan, Tower Hamlets First

Cllr Ohid Ahmed, Tower Hamlets First Cllr Alibor Choudhury, Tower Hamlets First (also election agent for Lutfur

Rahman, Tower Hamlets First Mayoral candidate)

Election agents and others

Chris Weavers, Election Agent for John Biggs, Labour Party Mayoralcandidate)

Ben Hancocks, Election Agent for Chris Smith, Green Party Mayoralcandidate

Dinah and Tony Glover (joint submission), Counting Agents

Tom Sleigh CC, Polling Agent

Ben Gadsbury, Political Advisor to Tower Hamlets Conservative Group

Linda Smith

Our Report on Elections Held in Tower Hamlets in May 2014

Documents

Transcript of Our Report on Elections Held in Tower Hamlets in May 2014