Delays at the Verification and Count for the May 2014 Elections in Tower Hamlets

* Embargoed until 00:01 Tuesday 1 July *

Delays at the verification and count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets

Report of the Electoral Commission’s review

July 2014

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 regulate party and election finance and set standards for well-run elections. We work to support a healthy democracy, where elections and referendums are

based on our principles of trust, participation, and no undue influence.

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

3 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 and count for the elections in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in London were administered.

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

Our review has considered evidence from the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and the Regional Returning Officer for the European Parliament election for the London region, and submissions from candidates, election agents and others involved in the conduct of the count. We have also drawn on the direct observations of three Electoral Commission representatives who were present during the verification and count on Friday 23 May.

We are aware that an election petition challenging the result of the election for the mayor of Tower Hamlets was lodged with the High Court on 10 June 2014. We have therefore amended the contents of this report to exclude any conclusions relating to the appointment and behaviour of counting agents and other attendees at the verification and count, to ensure that our review does not 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 London electoral 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 for the European Parliament elections was 50.8%. In total, 252,837 ballot papers were 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 Tower Hamlets and the count for the Tower Hamlets Mayoral and local ward elections 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 a cinema. The count for the members of the European Parliament for the

4 London electoral region of the UK was intended to take place from 4pm on Sunday 25 May at the Mile End Leisure Centre. Summary of key points during the verification and count process which were delayed

The result of the election of the executive Mayor for Tower Hamlets was announced at 01.15am on Saturday 24 May, after the count of first and second preference votes. Count totals for Tower Hamlets for the election of members of the European Parliament for the London Region were announced by 02.40am on Monday 26 May

The results of 13 local council ward elections were declared by 09.00am on Saturday 24 May, and a further five ward results were declared by 02.40am on 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 on Tuesday 27 May, after a further recount which took place from 19.00pm that evening.

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

 Starting verification: The process of opening ballot boxes and beginning the verification of the contents against the ballot paper accounts started approximately two and a half hours later than planned.

 Verification: The process of verifying the contents of ballot boxes against the ballot paper accounts took approximately one and a half hours longer than planned.

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

 Mayoral second preference count: The process of counting the second preference votes for the Mayoral election took nearly an hour longer than planned.

 Local authority ward counts: The process of counting the votes for the local authority ward elections took place over three separate sessions between the early hours of Saturday 24 May and the evening of Tuesday 27 May. Overall, including recounts, the process of counting the votes for the local authority wards took approximately 23 and a half hours,1 significantly longer than the scheduled duration of six hours.

1 Comprising nine hours between Friday 23 and Saturday 24 May; 12 hours between Sunday 25 and Monday 26 May; and two and a half hours on Tuesday 27 May.

5  European Parliamentary count: Overall, the process of counting the votes for the European Parliament election (which took place alongside unexpected local election recounts) took seven and a half hours longer than originally planned.

Conclusions

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

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

 Inadequate resource management during the verification and count on Friday 23 May and Saturday 24 May, and on Sunday 25 May: in addition to the significant delay to the start of the verification process on Friday 23 May, the number of count staff available was insufficient either to recover from the initial delay or to manage the number of ballot papers to be verified and counted within the Returning Officer’s planned timetable.

By the time the count for the council wards began at 1am on Saturday 24 May, 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 and subsequent errors by count staff meant that further delays during the local election counts, including those caused by requests for recounts, were significantly more frequent and were also likely to have magnified the overall delay to the completion of the count.

Underlying both of these main factors were plans for the management of the verification and count on Friday 23 May which proved inadequate for the number of ballot papers to be counted and the intense focus of candidates and 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 such a close and hard-fought contest should have identified the need for more staff in order to meet the Returning Officer’s planned schedule. Likewise, given the large number of count staff and other attendees expected to enter the count venue through a relatively small foyer area, the Returning Officer should have been able to anticipate that there would be problems ensuring everyone was in place inside the venue in time to begin counting according to the planned timetable.

6 Recommendations

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

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

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

 The Returning Officer ensures all attendees at the count fully understand the process for conducting the count and the standards of behaviour which are expected of them at all times.

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

 The Returning Officer ensures that all verification and count processes are transparent and provide appropriate opportunities for those who are entitled to observe to object to doubtful ballot paper adjudication decisions.

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

 The Returning Officer publishes his overall plans for the management of the 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 venues for future counts, with space for sufficient numbers of count staff and others entitled to attend. These details should also be published by December 2014.

For counting at all future elections:

 To ensure transparency of communication between counting staff and other attendees at the count (including counting agents) the Returning Officer should make clear in instructions to those attending any count that any such communication should take place in English only.

 Those attending the count should behave according to the rules set out in advance by the Returning Officer and should respect and immediately accept the Returning Officer’s instructions if he considers their behaviour unacceptable.

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

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

8 1 About this report

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

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

1.3 We will reflect and consider wider concerns raised about the administration 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.

1.4 This review of the verification and count considers:

 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 media representatives.  Consideration of comparative information from other local authorities with similar count requirements.

1.5 We are aware that an election petition challenging the result of the election for the mayor of Tower Hamlets was lodged with the High Court on 10 June 2014. The petition includes complaints about/allegations of acts or omissions by the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and/or his officials in breach of official duties under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and/or under the Mayoral Elections (Combination of Polls) Rules, including allegations relating to the appointment of counting agents, the attendance of people not entitled to be present during the count and the impact of the large numbers of the winning candidate’s supporters/agents attending the count on the efficient separation of ballots and/or counting of votes by the Returning Officer. In light of this legal challenge we have amended the contents of this report to exclude any conclusions relating to the appointment and behaviour of counting agents and other attendees at the verification and count, to ensure that our review does not prejudice the outcome of that challenge.

1.6 To inform this review, the Commission requested evidence from the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and held meetings to discuss the count with both the Returning Officer and Regional Returning Officer for the European Parliament election for the London region. We also contacted others involved in the conduct of the count, including candidates and agents

9 and the police, to invite them to submit their views and evidence about the verification and count process. We received submissions and evidence from 29 people, who are listed in Appendix A to this report. We have also drawn on the direct observations of three Electoral Commission representatives who were present during the verification and count between 7.15am and 11.15pm on Friday 23 May.

1.7 We are grateful to all those who took the time to describe their experiences and capture their views, including the Returning Officers and their staff from Hackney, Lewisham and Newham who provided comparative data about their own elections. We have summarised the points made in those submissions in the analysis of the verification and count in Chapter 3 of this report.

1.8 The Electoral Commission has powers under section 10 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to give advice to Returning Officers and other individuals or bodies in connection with our statutory responsibilities. We have set out in Chapter 4 our recommendations for the Returning Officer and others for planning and managing future election counts in Tower Hamlets. We have also set out our plans for monitoring the progress of the Returning Officer and others in responding to our recommendations.

10 2 Background to the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets

Managing election counts: roles and responsibilities

Returning Officer 2.1 Returning Officers (ROs) play a central role in the democratic process. Their role is to ensure that elections are administered effectively in accordance with the statutory framework and that, as a result, the experience of voters and those standing for election is a positive one.

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

2.3 By virtue of appointment as the RO for principal area elections (which include London Boroughs), the same person also acts as the RO for any Mayoral elections in the local authority and for the relevant counting area within the electoral region for European Parliamentary elections. For European Parliamentary elections, the counting area is defined as the local government area.

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

2.5 The Commission produces detailed guidance to support ROs in making arrangements for and managing the count. Our guidance states that ROs should 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 the number of ballot papers in each box either matches the number of ballot papers issued as stated on the ballot paper account or, if it does not:

 the source of the variance has been identified and can be explained; and/or  the box has been recounted at least twice, until the same number of ballot papers is counted on two consecutive occasions.

11  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 all times.

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

Regional Returning Officer 2.7 At European Parliamentary elections, Regional Returning Officers (of whom there are 12 – one for each electoral region of the UK) are responsible for the overall conduct of the election within their region and for collating and announcing the regional result. They are also responsible for liaising with and coordinating the work of local Returning Officers in the electoral region.

Counting assistants 2.8 Counting assistants are employed by the Returning Officer and are responsible for verifying and counting the votes after the close of poll. Counting assistants work in teams of varying sizes as designated by the Returning Officer.

Counting agents 2.9 Counting agents can be appointed by the candidate or agent to observe the verification and counting processes. Counting agents have a number of important 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 paper “rejection objected to”.

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

2.10 The Returning Officer is permitted by law to limit the number of counting agents, subject to the following:

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

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

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

Candidates and agents 2.12 Candidates and their agents are entitled to attend the verification and count. One guest of each candidate may also attend the verification and count.

Accredited observers 2.13 Observers accredited by the Electoral Commission are entitled to observe the verification and counting of the votes.

Electoral Commission representatives 2.14 Electoral Commission representatives may also observe proceedings at the verification and counting of votes.

Others 2.15 The legislation provides for ROs, at their discretion, to permit other people to attend the proceedings if:

 they are satisfied that it will not impede the verification or efficient counting of votes; and

 they have consulted the election agents, or thought it impracticable to do so.

2.16 It is important for the media to be given space and the opportunity to report on the results. The RO has the discretion to decide which representatives of the media are allowed to attend. As with all attendees, the RO must ensure that media representatives do not interfere with the process or compromise the secrecy of the vote.

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

Controlling admission to the count 2.18 Excluding accredited observers and Commission representatives, our guidance recommends that tickets or entrance passes should be issued in advance to everyone entitled to attend the count. We also advise that Returning Officers should give consideration to issuing different-coloured tickets or passes to identify the different categories of attendees.

13 2.19 We recommend that Returning Officers should provide lists of those persons entitled to attend at the entrance to the verification and count, and instruct security staff/door attendants to check the passes of anyone seeking to attend. Electoral Commission representatives and accredited observers do not need to provide advance notification of where they intend to observe and therefore may not appear on these lists; they are nevertheless entitled to access the verification and count venue on production of their observer or Commission representative identification badge. Context for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets

Demographic profile of the borough 2.20 Data from the 2011 census shows that Tower Hamlets is one of the most diverse local authority areas in the UK with more than 40% of residents who were born outside the UK, including the country’s largest community of residents with historic or more recent family roots from Bangladesh. This diverse national and ethnic background is reflected in the mixture of main languages used by residents: in 2011 two thirds of residents used English as their main or only language; 18 per cent used Bengali; and the remaining 16 per cent used one of 90 different European or other international languages or groups of languages.

2.21 Tower Hamlets also has the highest proportion of Muslim residents in England (35 per cent compared with a national average of 5 per cent) and the lowest proportion of Christian residents in England (27 per cent compared with a national average of 59 per cent). Count staff employed by the Returning Officer reflected the Borough’s overall demographic diversity.

Political control of the local authority 2.22 The previous elections for Tower Hamlets councillors took place in May 2010. The overall result after those elections was an overall majority on the council for the Labour party (41 out of 51 seats), as had been the case in Tower Hamlets since the early 1990s. A local referendum held on the same day as the May 2010 elections approved the introduction of a directly elected Mayor for Tower Hamlets. Directly elected Mayors have powers to decide on the size of the cabinet and appoint cabinet members (from the council), to exercise all of the council’s executive functions and/or to decide how, and to what extent, those functions are delegated. Mayors also propose the budget and formulate significant policy framework plans, but amendment or rejection of the proposals requires a two-thirds majority vote by the full council. Directly elected Mayors have no powers in relation to the administration of elections or electoral registration.

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

14 2.24 At the time of the May 2014 elections the Labour group of councillors was still the largest political group on the council, although with a smaller majority than after the May 2010 elections, of one seat overall (26 out of 51 councillors) .

The May 2014 elections 2.25 The number and size of wards for Tower Hamlets council were changed following a review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, and the May 2014 elections were the first using the new electoral arrangements. There were elections for a total of 45 seats in 20 wards (a reduction from 51 seats in 17 wards), comprising a mixture of single-member, two-member and three-member wards. The boundaries of wards in the borough had also changed as a result of the review.

2.26 The May 2014 elections 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 London electoral region of the UK.

2.27 This was the first time that the election of Tower Hamlets councillors had taken place on the same day as the election of the Tower Hamlets executive mayor. The local elections in 2010 had taken place on the same day as the UK Parliamentary general election.

2.28 The poll for the election of three members in one ward in the east of the borough, Blackwall & Cubitt Town, was countermanded following the death of one of the candidates on the day before polling day. While the poll for the election of members of the European Parliament for the London region and the mayor of Tower Hamlets took place as scheduled on Thursday 22 May in Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward, the poll for the election of the three local councillors for the ward was postponed until Thursday 3 July.

Recommendations from previous elections in Tower Hamlets 2.29 Following a number of complaints and allegations made at previous 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 of recommendations in March 2013 to all those involved in upholding the integrity of elections in Tower Hamlets. The steps we identified were needed to rebuild confidence and trust between the key participants in the election process and to reduce the risk that the May 2014 local and European Parliament elections might be damaged by an inadequate response to allegations of electoral fraud. Tower Hamlets was also identified by the Electoral Commission prior to the May 2014 elections as one of 16 areas nationally which were at higher risk of allegations of electoral fraud.

2.30 In response to our recommendations, the Returning Officer put in place a local protocol which represented a commitment by campaigners, individuals and organisations involved in the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets to

15 support electoral integrity.2 The protocol was endorsed by the Metropolitan Police Service and supported by the Electoral Commission, and was signed by representatives of all the political parties represented on the Council before the elections, with the exception of the local Conservative Party. The protocol set out agreed processes for reporting and investigating allegations of electoral fraud in the period leading up to polling day, and also included commitments by campaigners not to handle postal vote applications or postal ballot packs and to limit the number of campaigners outside polling stations on polling day to no more than two per candidate.

2.31 In the months leading up to the May 2014 elections the Commission closely monitored progress towards implementing our recommendations, meeting the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and the Metropolitan Police Service regularly to review their plans and attending briefing meetings for prospective candidates.

2.32 In evidence submitted to us the Returning Officer acknowledged that these additional measures, which were generally successful, nevertheless placed extra demands on staff and systems which may have adversely affected the resources available for preparation of the count and venue.

Appointment of the Returning Officer 2.33 The Returning Officer was appointed by the full council, in accordance with the Council’s constitution, in January 2013. The Returning Officer, John Williams is the Service Head for Democratic Services for Tower Hamlets Council and has also been appointed by Tower Hamlets Council as the Electoral Registration Officer for Tower Hamlets.

2.34 The May 2014 elections were the first elections where John Williams had been appointed as the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets, although he had previous experience of acting as Deputy Returning Officer in three local authorities including Tower Hamlets. He appointed two Deputy Returning Officers for the verification and count for the May 2014 elections: the local authority’s Legal Advisor; and the local authority’s Electoral Services Manager (an experienced electoral administrator who managed election counts in several London boroughs).

Venues for verification and the count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets 2.35 Verification of the contents of ballot boxes for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets and the count for the Tower Hamlets Mayoral and local ward elections 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 a cinema. Ballot boxes were stored in a secure location at the Council offices overnight between the close of poll on Thursday 22 May and the verification

2 Published on the Tower Hamlets Council website at http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=7c3e44e1-1d9c-4b00-ab63- 441afc9e6eb0&version=-1

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

2.36 The count for the members of the European Parliament for the London electoral 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 23 May, ballot boxes containing the ballot papers for the European Parliament election were sealed in ballot boxes which were again stored in a secure location at the Council offices until Sunday 25 May.

2.37 The final recount for Bromley South ward took place at the Town Hall, Mulberry Place, on the evening of Tuesday 27 May. Ballot boxes containing the ballot papers for the ward were again stored in a secure location at the Council offices until Tuesday 27 May. Comparative information about other election counts in May 2014

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

2.39 We have collated data about those elections to provide some comparative context for the scale and management of the count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets, set out in Table 1 below.

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

Tower Hackney Lewisham Newham Hamlets Electorate 181,871 160,081 196,609 173,606

Turnout: European 50.8% 41.5% 38.9% 43.6% election 47.6% 39.6% 37.2% 40.6% Local elections

Total number of ballot papers 252,837 203,231 217,829 234,695 counted Number of mayoral 10 5 7 8 candidates

17 Tower Hackney Lewisham Newham Hamlets Number of 193 21 18 20 wards Number of ward 1924 241 259 208 candidates Result of Lutfur Jules Pipe Steve Sir Robin Mayoral Rahman (Labour Bullock Wales election (Tower Party) (Labour (Labour Hamlets First) elected with Party) Party) elected with 60.4% of first elected with elected with 52.3% of the preference 50.8% of first 61.2% of first total first and votes cast preference preference valid second (no second votes cast votes cast preference preference (no second (no second votes cast (no count preference preference candidate required) count count received required) required) more than 50% of first preference votes) Overall result of Labour: 20 Labour: 43 Labour: 53 Labour: 60 local council THF6: 18 Cons: 4 Green: 1 elections5 Cons: 4 Lib Dem: 3

Number of 6 wards fully 1 ward None None recounts recounted bundle check7 Number of (i) (i) 180 (i) 200 (i) 96 (i) 200 counting assistants and (ii) 18 (ii) 30 (ii) 15 (ii) 40 (ii) supervisors for verification and local counts

3 Not including Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward, where the poll was countermanded after the death of a candidate. 4 Excluding the 12 candidates who were validly nominated for the poll in Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward. 5 At 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 scheduled polling day on 22 May 2014. 6 Tower Hamlets First. 7 A check of the counted bundles of ballot papers rather than a full recount.

18 Tower Hackney Lewisham Newham Hamlets Number of (i) (i) 64 (i) 100 (i) 96 (i) 40 counting assistants and (ii) 8 (ii) 20 (ii) 15 (ii) 8 (ii) supervisors for European election count Verification 10.30 9.00 08.30 22.00 start and finish 23 May 23 May 23 May 22 May times - 18.00 - 14.00 - 16.30 - 05.30 23 May 23 May 23 May 23 May

Mayoral count 18.30 14.45 17.30 09.00 start and finish 23 May 23 May 23 May 23 May times - 01.15 - 20.00 - 19.30 - 13.00 24 May 23 May 23 May 23 May

Local count 01.45 14.45 20.30 14.30 start and finish 24 May 23 May 23 May 23 May times - 09.00 - 21.30 - 03.00 - 18.00 24 May 23 May 24 May 23 May (recounts continued 26 and 27 May, concluding at 21.30 27 May)

European count 14.30 14:00 12.30 14:30 start and finish 25 May 25 May 25 May 25 May times - 02.30 - 19:30 - 17:32 - 20:30 26 May 25 May 25 May 25 May

2.40 In his evidence to us the Returning Officer has also highlighted several other factors which he considered increased the complexity of the count for Tower Hamlets compared with these other boroughs. These include the proportion of local election ballot papers for multi-member wards on which votes were cast for candidates representing more than one party (which could not be counted as easily as those on which all votes were cast for candidates representing the same party): in Tower Hamlets the Returning Officer estimated that more than 50% of all local election ballot papers included such ‘split’ votes; in Lewisham, the Returning Officer has estimated that approximately 45% of local election ballot papers included ‘split’ votes.

2.41 The Returning Officer has also highlighted the closeness of the results for the local ward elections in Tower Hamlets compared with the other boroughs. In Tower Hamlets the margin between the last winning candidate

19 and the next candidate was fewer than 60 votes in seven wards (including margins of 10 votes or fewer in three wards). In Hackney, two wards had winning margins of fewer than 25 votes, but the next smallest margin was over 300 votes and the winning margin was more than 1,000 votes in 12 wards; 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 was more than 1,000 votes in five wards; and in Newham the smallest winning margin was 680 votes and the winning margin was more than 1,000 votes in 16 wards.

20 3 Analysis of verification and count processes

Summary of key points during the verification and count process which were delayed

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

 Verification: The process of verifying the contents of ballot boxes against the ballot paper accounts took approximately one and a half hours longer than planned.

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

 Mayoral second preference count: The process of counting the second preference votes for the Mayoral election took nearly an hour longer than planned.

 Local authority ward counts: The process of counting the votes for the local authority ward elections took place over three separate sessions between the early hours of Saturday 24 May and the evening of Tuesday 27 May. Overall, including recounts, the process of counting the votes for the local authority wards took approximately 23 and a half hours,8 significantly longer than the scheduled duration of six hours.

 European Parliamentary count: Overall, the process of counting the votes for the European Parliament election (which took place alongside unexpected local election recounts) took seven and a half hours longer than originally planned.

8 Comprising nine hours between Friday 23 and Saturday 24 May; 12 hours between Sunday 25 and Monday 26 May; and two and a half hours on Tuesday 27 May.

21 Detailed timeline of the verification and count process

3.2 We asked the Returning Officer to provide an analysis of the time taken for each stage of the verification and count process, compared with the expected timings based on his plan. The information provided by the Returning Officer is summarised in Figure 1 below. Submissions we received as part of this review, together with the direct observations of Commission representatives, indicate that this is an accurate reflection of the time taken to complete the relevant stages of the verification and count process.

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

Stage Venue Planned Actual Comments time time Verification Troxy 08.00 10.30 Verification start delayed by almost 2.5 hours due to: Returning Officer’s start (all 3 Friday 23 Friday 23 security arrangements which caused to delays in processing entry of elections) May May 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 venue and enabling agents to check numerous personal/party seals on ballot boxes before they were opened.

Verification Troxy 14.00 18.00 Once underway, the verification process took 1.5 hours longer than end Friday 23 Friday 23 planned. This delay was due mainly to higher than anticipated turnout and May May failure (because of the delayed start to verification) to complete verification before the scheduled breaks for counting staff lunch and Friday prayers.

Mayoral Troxy 14.15 18.30 The Mayoral count started approximately 4 hours later than planned, as a election Friday 23 Friday 23 result of the original delay to commencing the verification and the additional count start May May length of the verification process.

Mayoral Troxy 1st 1st The first preference count took considerably longer than planned (5 hours election preference preference vs. 2.25 hours), due to factors including: higher than planned numbers of count count: count: ballot papers, and numerous challenges to count adjudication leading to declaration 16.30 23.30 high numbers of papers (total rejected over 2,300) being referred for RO Friday 23 Friday 23 adjudication. May May The Mayoral count was then extended further by the need for a 2nd 2nd 2nd preference count, which took nearly an hour longer to complete than preference preference planned. Again, there were numerous challenges and adjudications before

23 Stage Venue Planned Actual Comments time time count (if count: the result was declared. required): 01.15 17.30 Saturday Friday 23 24 May May

Council Troxy c. 17.45 01.45 Following the post-declaration speeches of the Mayoral candidates (20-30 contests Friday 23 Saturday minutes), there was a further brief delay while the RO consulted agents, count start May 24 May 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 Troxy 11.59 09.00 Once underway, the Council counts took approx. 1.25 hours longer than contests Friday 23 Saturday planned (7.25 hrs vs 6.00 hrs) due to (i) higher than planned numbers of count end May 24 May ballot papers; (ii) conduct of agents and candidates requiring intervention by the Returning Officer’s 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 all from the same party. Recounts continued Declarations for 13 of the 19 individual ward counts continued from 04.00 to from 09.00 09.00 on Saturday 24 May. Recounts were undertaken for the other six to 11.00 wards, but the results of those recounts were not accepted by agents. Saturday These recounts were suspended at 11.00 on Saturday 24 May, and

24 Stage Venue Planned Actual Comments time time 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 Officer’s staff, and locked in a secure area overnight.

European Mile End 16.00 16.00 This session was planned to count only the European Parliamentary Parliament Leisure Sunday 25 Sunday 25 papers. Due to six ward contest recounts also being required, the start time count start Centre May May was 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 Mile End - 14.30 Sealed ballot boxes for the six unfinished ward counts were transferred by contests Leisure Sunday 25 the Returning Officer’s staff to Mile End Leisure Centre on Sunday 25 May. recounts Centre May start The ward recounts were subject to intense pressure from counting agents who 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.

25 Stage Venue Planned Actual Comments time time European Mile End 19.00 02.30 Despite beginning the count earlier than planned and attempting to Parliament Leisure Sunday 25 Monday 26 prioritise the count for the European Parliament election, the count took count end Centre May May significantly longer than anticipated (10 and a half hours overall, compared with 3 hours originally planned).

European Mile End 22.00 02.40 Parliament Leisure Sunday 25 Monday 26 count Centre May May declaration

Council Mile End - 02.40 Five of the six unfinished ward recounts were agreed and declared by contest Leisure Monday 26 02.40 on Monday 26 May, but the recount for the final ward (Bromley recounts Centre May South) was not accepted by agents. This recount was suspended and, with end 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 to store the ballot box at Limehouse police station until Tuesday evening, but the police did not agree to this request.

26 Stage Venue Planned Actual Comments time time Final council Town - 19.00 to The sealed ballot box for the final ward recount was transferred by the contest Hall, 21.30 Returning Officer to the room used for the recount in the Town Hall. recount Mulberry Tuesday Place 27 May The final ward result was declared by 21.30 on Tuesday 27 May.

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

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

Inadequate management of entry to the count venue 3.4 There were significant delays in allowing entry to the count venue on Friday 23 May for both count staff and those entitled to attend as candidates, agents or other guests and observers. The Returning Officer has reported that many agents, guests and media representatives did not bring their letter of invitation or accreditation with them, adding to the delays in accessing the venue.

3.5 The Returning Officer was required by law to open the ballot boxes in the presence of any counting agents who were in attendance at the count. Given the significant focus of candidates, agents and the media on the integrity of the election process in Tower Hamlets, with many placing personal seals on ballot boxes, the Returning Officer was reluctant to begin this process without their involvement.

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

Planning based on overly optimistic assumptions about the speed of counting 3.7 Several submissions expressed scepticism about the timetable originally planned for the verification and count on Friday 23 May, highlighting concerns that the plans were overly optimistic given the expected high turnout and the closeness of both the Mayoral election and many of the individual ward contests.

3.8 While tiredness of count staff and other attendees at the count may have had an impact on the number of recounts required for individual ward contests during the early hours of Saturday 24 May and during the evening of Sunday 25 May to Monday 26 May, some requests for recounts should have been expected in any event, given the range of known factors including changes to local ward boundaries, the large numbers of candidates standing in many wards and the generally hard-fought election campaign.

3.9 Relative to the number of ballot papers included in the verification and count on Friday 23 May, the number of counting staff employed for the verification and the count for Tower Hamlets appears to have been slightly lower than the number of counting staff employed in both Hackney and Newham. In Lewisham, the third London borough with the same pattern of elections as Tower Hamlets in May 2014, there were fewer counting staff relative to the number of ballot papers than in Tower Hamlets.

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

28 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 to maximise the number of staff that could be accommodated.

Insufficiently responsive management during the count 3.11 Several submissions from people attending the count described relatively lengthy periods during which large numbers of count staff appeared not to be carrying out any significant activity. In his evidence to us, the Returning Officer acknowledged that, while a certain amount of inactivity was an inevitable part of the normal counting process (for example while the count figures of the various teams counting a ward were all finalised and then totalled), more count supervisors should have been employed to ensure the efficient conduct of the count.

3.12 While it may not be realistic to expect all count staff to be fully utilised at every stage of the verification and count process, a more responsive management plan which monitored activity levels and allowed for reallocation of activity could have reduced the length of time taken to complete key stages of the process.

3.13 Submissions also identified concerns that the Returning Officer did not appear to have in place a realistic contingency plan for dealing with delays to the count process, or appeared unwilling to consider alternatives to proceeding with the count for the local authority ward contests after concluding the mayoral election count at approximately 01.30am on Saturday 24 May (such as suspending counting for several hours until 9am the following day).

3.14 In his evidence to us, however, the Returning Officer refuted this suggestion and explained that he had in fact consulted widely with local election candidates and agents and count staff about whether to exercise his authority to suspend the count for the local ward contests until 9am on Saturday 24 May. The near unanimous view from that consultation was that counting the local ward contests should continue overnight. The Returning Officer consulted appropriately and took proper account of the views of candidates, agents and count staff in reaching his decision. While he could not have known at that point exactly how long the local counts would take, the Returning Officer might reasonably have anticipated that they would take significantly longer to complete than planned, given the length of the verification and mayoral election counts.

Adjudication approach 3.15 In his evidence to us the Returning Officer explained that he had initially sought to manage the adjudication of doubtful ballot papers in an open and transparent way, with Deputy Returning Officers instructed to refer any disputed adjudication decisions to him for a final decision rather than attempting to reach agreement with counting agents themselves. While this approach rightly focused responsibility for making important decisions at the appropriate level of the statutory officer holder rather than any Deputies, it did appear to lead to a bottle-neck at the end of each count. This degree of complete personal control and responsibility is, in our experience, relatively

29 unusual for Returning Officers at UK elections, although it was not unreasonable for the Returning Officer to take this approach in the specific circumstances and context of the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets.

3.16 The Returning Officer stated that when it became obvious that the large number of doubtful ballot papers could cause a delay to the completion of the count, he passed responsibility for adjudication to his two Deputy Returning Officers as well. Nevertheless, the approach taken is likely to have contributed significantly to the delay at the end of the first and second preference stages of the count for the mayoral election, when the Returning Officer was required personally to adjudicate on a significant number of doubtful ballots.

Number of recounts for local elections 3.17 The number of recounts requested during the count for the local ward contests in Tower Hamlets was significantly higher than in the three other London boroughs which had the same pattern of elections in May 2014. Comparative information shows that recounts were only requested for one ward in Hackney, which was resolved by a check of the counted bundles of ballot papers rather than a full recount. Given the political context for the elections, however, the likelihood of requests for recounts should have been anticipated and included in the Returning Officer’s planning assumptions.

3.18 The Returning Officer and several submissions also identified that the decision to attempt to recount six local ward contests both before and alongside the European Parliament count during the afternoon and evening of Sunday 25 May (despite the fact that staff agreed at short notice to attend the venue earlier than planned) undoubtedly had an impact on the duration of the European Parliament count, particularly since the Returning Officer had not anticipated this change in his original planning and staffing assumptions. Summary of other issues at the count

Selection of venue 3.19 Several submissions queried whether the venue chosen for the verification and the count on Friday 23 May was big enough to accommodate all the count staff and other people entitled to attend. The Returning Officer has indicated that, while he considered other venues, there were no larger alternative venues available for use on 23 May within the borough.

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

3.21 The Returning Officer has also recognised that the venue used on Sunday 25 May (which had originally been selected for the count for the European Parliament election alone) was not ideally suited to conducting recounts for the local authority ward contests alongside the count for the European Parliament elections.

30 Security outside the venue on Friday 23 and Saturday 24 May 3.22 The majority of submissions recognised that there was no actual disorder outside the count venue during the evening of Friday 23 May and the early hours of Saturday 24 May, but the atmosphere inside the count venue was undoubtedly affected by presence outside the venue of a large number of people who appeared to be supporters of one of the Mayoral election candidates.

3.23 While a small number of supporters had been present outside the count venue during the day on Friday 23 May, the number appeared to increase significantly during the evening, leading to a peak between approximately 10pm and 2am. The local police attempted to manage access to the venue during this period, including taking steps on several occasions to temporarily restrict entry to and exit from the venue for limited periods of time. Several submissions described concerns expressed by candidates and their agents and 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 police that they might not be able to be readmitted to the venue.

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

Behaviour of attendees at the count 3.25 Several submissions raised serious concerns about the behaviour of some attendees at the count, including candidates, election agents, counting agents and candidates’ guests. These included examples of counting staff being put under pressure by counting agents, attendees using mobile phones and attendees encroaching on the counting tables. In his evidence to us the Returning Officer highlighted that he had to intervene to address several instances of unacceptable behaviour, including to insist that only appointed counting agents were allowed in the seats made available for them to challenge doubtful ballot paper adjudications.

3.26 The Returning Officer has also stated that he removed two teams of counting assistants from the local council ward recounts on Sunday 25 May following allegations that they had spoken in an overly friendly way to the Mayor, who had been re-elected following the count on Thursday 23 to Friday 24 May. Several submissions also expressed concern about some counting agents and other attendees talking to count staff in Bengali, which meant that other observers could not understand what had been said. While the Returning Officer reported in his evidence to us that he had seen no evidence that improper conduct had taken place between count staff and attendees at the count, he had taken steps to address concerns about the potential for improper conduct in the interests of maintaining confidence in the process. This included instructing all count staff not to engage with candidates and agents.

31 3.27 Several submissions from other attendees including candidates and election agents, however, highlighted little or no concern about this aspect of the count.

3.28 Several submissions also identified concerns about the control of access by attendees within the count on Friday 23 and Saturday 24 May, including access by representatives of the media. They suggested that some attendees had entered without properly showing proof of their entitlement to attend, or had been given incorrect identification badges (which were intended to identify whether they were counting agents, candidates, or candidates’ guests). Submissions also identified concerns that this also appeared to have been a significant issue on Sunday 25 May, particularly as the Returning Officer had not originally planned to use the Mile End Sports Centre to carry out recounts for the local authority ward contests alongside the count for the European Parliament elections.

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

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

Accuracy of counts and recounts 3.31 Several submissions highlighted concerns about the capability of count staff at various stages during the verification and count process. Some submissions gave examples of more junior count staff appearing not to fully understand the process, in particular dealing with spilt votes (where ballot papers included votes for candidates from more than one political party), and also completing the tally sheets used to verify count totals.

3.32 Given that count staff were present at the count venue for more than 24 hours between Friday 23 May and Saturday 24 May, and that many count staff 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 count accurately and consistently, particularly during the ward contest recounts which took place towards the end of the session in the morning of Saturday 24 May. Many submissions from candidates and their agents expressed

32 sympathy with and concern for the welfare of the count staff during this long period.

3.33 Several submissions described specific concerns about the accuracy of the initial count and subsequent recounts for the Island Gardens ward, suggesting that the total number of votes counted appeared to differ substantially from the verification figure after the first count.

3.34 In evidence submitted to us the Returning Officer provided an explanation for this apparent discrepancy, which resulted from an error in totalling the count figures from one of the teams of count staff working on the Island Gardens ward count. The Returning Officer has explained that this error was picked up through the normal process of comparing the count totals with the verification total, and the ballot papers for the ward were counted again from scratch before the provisional results were officially shared with the candidates and their agents; following that process there was a variance of one ballot paper from the original verification total. The result was so close that the Returning Officer nevertheless accepted a request to conduct a further recount of the ward, which took place and was concluded on Sunday 25 May, with agents accepting the result.

3.35 One submission also identified specific concerns about the accuracy of the initial count and subsequent recounts for St Peter’s ward, suggesting that count totals for individual candidates changed significantly between the initial count which concluded at approximately 9.30am on Saturday 24 May and the subsequent recount held on Sunday 25 May. The submission also alleged that seals placed on the ballot boxes containing the ballot papers overnight between 23 and 24 May appeared to have been tampered with and opened.

3.36 In evidence submitted to us the Returning Officer provided an explanation for the apparent discrepancy in count totals, and also sought to rebut the allegation that ballot box seals had been tampered with and opened. The Returning Officer stated that following the conclusion of the first count for the election of three members for St Peter’s ward at approximately 9.30am on Saturday 24 May, the difference between the candidates in third and fourth place was small and he received and agreed to a proper request for a recount made by one of the appointed election agents. The Returning Officer explained to the candidates and agents present that, given the length of the count at that point, the recount would not take place immediately but would take place on Sunday 25 May at the venue for the European Parliament count. The ballot boxes were sealed and stored overnight in a secure location at the Council offices until Sunday 25 May.

3.37 The Returning Officer has reported in his evidence to us that no election agents or candidates raised concerns with him about seals placed on ballot boxes (for example that they had been broken at the time the ballot boxes were reopened on Sunday 25 May). He has also highlighted that there were two candidates (standing on behalf of different political parties) with exactly the same surname, who therefore appeared adjacent to one another on the ballot paper. The Returning Officer stated that he instructed counting staff at the recount to call out the full names of the candidates when recording

33 mixed votes. There was a change in the total votes counted for these two candidates between the first count and the recount, suggesting that the initial count totals had not been accurate. The Returning Officer also reported in his evidence to us that the result of the recount was not challenged by any agent or candidate before it was declared.

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

Communication by the Returning Officer during the count 3.39 Several submissions were critical of communication by the Returning Officer during the verification and count. While Electoral Commission representatives observed good communication during the early stages of the verification and the count for the Mayoral election, submissions highlighted concerns that long periods of time passed during later stages of the count with no update from the Returning Officer. The apparent absence of communication about the progress of the count is likely to have exacerbated concerns about the process itself.

34 4 Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Having considered the comments and evidence submitted to us as part of this review, we have identified two primary factors which appear to have caused the overall delay in completing the counts for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets:

4.2 By the time the count for the council wards began at 1am on Saturday 24 May 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 and subsequent errors by count staff meant that further delays during the local election counts, including those caused by requests for recounts, were significantly more frequent and were also likely to have magnified the overall delay to the completion of the count.

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

4.4 Notwithstanding the difficulty in identifying a larger venue within the borough for the verification and count, a realistic assessment of the potential for higher than average turnout in such a close and hard-fought contest should have identified the need for more staff in order to meet the Returning Officer’s planned schedule. Likewise, given the large number of count staff and other attendees expected to enter the count venue through a relatively small foyer area, the Returning Officer should have been able to anticipate that there would be problems ensuring everyone was in place inside the venue in time to begin counting according to the planned timetable.

35 Recommendations

4.5 There are significant lessons for the Returning Officer to learn from the experience of the count for the May 2014 elections in Tower Hamlets. We set out below our recommendations for the Returning Officer and others for planning and managing future election counts in Tower Hamlets. Immediate and sustained action must be taken to provide reassurance to voters, candidates and campaigners that future election counts will be well-managed and efficiently delivered. We will monitor closely the response to these recommendations, but we are also ready to provide support and advice to the Returning Officer to help ensure that he can deliver the improvements which are required.

Overall planning and management approach

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

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

The Returning Officer should ensure that there is a contingency plan in place for managing the count if the original plan is no longer sufficient, including what actions will be taken if the count process is taking longer to complete than planned. The Returning Officer should identify key points during the count process – including commencement and completion of the verification stage – at which he will review progress against the expected schedule. This progress review should be used to inform a realistic assessment of the likelihood of delivering the overall plan for the count, and whether and when it may be necessary to implement contingency plans.

The Returning Officer is responsible in law for the conduct of the count. He must make clear to all other participants that he alone is responsible for managing the count, while acknowledging the important statutory role of those entitled to observe and formally object to decisions by the Returning Officer to reject doubtful ballots.

The Returning Officer should make clear on what basis he will make decisions about the management of the count, including any decision to suspend the count. This should include identifying in advance those decisions which must be 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 and delivery of future counts are reviewed by a selection of other Returning

36 Officers with relevant experience, particularly including running elections in London, to ensure that planning assumptions and the overall management approach 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 the countermanded poll in Blackwall and Cubitt Town ward on 3 July 2014, and should aim to publish his overall plans for the management of the count by no later than the beginning of December 2014, five months before 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 count staff and others entitled to attend, including:

 Considering venues located outside the borough.  Where multiple elections are held on the same day, considering conducting counts consecutively, rather than simultaneously.  Where multiple elections are held on the same day, considering conducting counts in more than one venue.

The Returning Officer should consult locally on possible options, taking into account views from local political parties, elected representatives, the police and others, before publishing details of the proposed venue and approach for future counts and clearly communicating the basis for the proposed approach.

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

Transparency of verification and count processes

The Returning Officer should ensure that all verification and count processes are transparent and provide appropriate opportunities for those who are entitled to observe and to object to doubtful ballot paper adjudication decisions. This should include ensuring that bundles of counted ballot papers are stored in full sight of counting agents in a way which allows them to monitor progress of the count.

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

37 assistants, and that any such communication should take place in English only.

The Returning Officer should ensure that the process for adjudicating doubtful ballot papers is transparent and clearly understood by those entitled to observe and formally object to the Returning Officer’s decision to reject a ballot paper. The Returning Officer should hold specific briefing sessions to explain and demonstrate the adjudication process to candidates, election agents and counting agents, using materials developed and provided by the Electoral Commission for use by all Returning Officers, including doubtful ballot paper placemats.

The Returning Officer should ensure that progress of the verification and count process is communicated to all attendees, providing regular updates throughout the process.

The Returning Officer should ensure that these recommendations are implemented at the count for the election in Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward on 3 July 2014. Following evaluation of the count on 3 July by the Returning Officer, any further modifications to the verification and count process 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, are briefed on and fully understand the process for conducting the count and the standards of behaviour which are expected of them at all times. This should aim to ensure that count staff are able to carry out verification and count activities without interference from counting agents and other observers, including leaning over or onto count tables or distracting count staff by speaking loudly with them or among themselves. This should also include appropriate restrictions on the use of mobile phones in the count venue to ensure 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 anyone from the count venue if their behaviour interferes with the effective conduct of the 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 and enforced, including excluding attendees from the count venue if their behaviour interferes with the effective conduct of the count. Attendees at the count who have been briefed on standards of acceptable behaviour should respect and immediately accept the Returning Officer’s instructions.

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

38 The Returning Officer and the Metropolitan Police Service should ensure that these recommendations are implemented at the count for the election in Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward on 3 July 2014. Following evaluation of the count on 3 July by the Returning Officer and the Metropolitan Police Service, any further modifications to plans for managing the venue and attendees at the count should be included in planning for the May 2015 elections. Monitoring progress in Tower Hamlets

4.6 We recognise that the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets will need to work with others to develop and deliver plans in response to these recommendations. We are pleased that he has already taken steps to learn lessons from the experience of the May 2014 elections to improve the count for the election in Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward on 3 July 2014, including moving the count to a bigger venue to reflect the increased number of candidates standing for election and seeking consultancy advice from another experienced Returning Officer on his approach to managing the count. Following evaluation of the count on 3 July by the Returning Officer, we will continue to monitor closely the response to these recommendations between now and the UK Parliamentary general election in May 2015.

4.7 If we are not satisfied that sufficient progress towards addressing these recommendations has been made by the end of September 2014 we will make clear what more needs to be done, and what further action we will take to support the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets to ensure that the count processes for future elections are well managed.

4.8 We will also use our powers to attend and observe at polling stations and 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 unscheduled elections between now and May 2015.

39 Appendix A: Submissions to our 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 the European 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 Peter’s 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 Mayoral candidate)  Ben Hancocks, Election Agent for Chris Smith, Green Party Mayoral candidate  Dinah and Tony Glover (joint submission), Counting Agents  Tom Sleigh CC, Polling Agent  Ben Gadsbury, Political Advisor to Tower Hamlets Conservative Group  Linda Smith