AGENDA

Meeting Election Review Panel Date Thursday 16 June 2016 Time 10.00 am Place Committee Room 5, City Hall, The Queen's Walk, London, SE1 2AA

Copies of the reports and any attachments may be found at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly

Most meetings of the London Assembly and its Committees are webcast live at www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/london-assembly/webcasts where you can also view past meetings.

Members of the Panel Gareth Bacon AM (Chairman) Sian Berry AM Len Duvall AM Peter Whittle AM

A meeting of the Panel has been called by the Chairman of the Panel to deal with the business listed below. Mark Roberts, Executive Director of Secretariat Wednesday 8 June 2016

Further Information If you have questions, would like further information about the meeting or require special facilities please contact: Rebecca Arnold, Committee Services Manager; Telephone: 020 7983 4421; Email: [email protected]; Minicom: 020 7983 4458.

For media enquiries please contact Alison Bell; Telephone: 020 7983 5769; Email: [email protected]. If you have any questions about individual items please contact the author whose details are at the end of the report.

This meeting will be open to the public, except for where exempt information is being discussed as noted on the agenda. A guide for the press and public on attending and reporting meetings of local government bodies, including the use of film, photography, social media and other means is available at www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Openness-in-Meetings.pdf.

There is access for disabled people, and induction loops are available. There is limited underground parking for orange and blue badge holders, which will be allocated on a first-come first-served basis. Please contact Facilities Management on 020 7983 4750 in advance if you require a parking space or further information. If you, or someone you know, needs a copy of the agenda, minutes or reports in large print or Braille, audio, or in another language, then please call us on 020 7983 4100 or email [email protected].

Agenda Election Review Panel Thursday 16 June 2016

1 Apologies for Absence and Chairman's Announcements

To receive any apologies for absence and any announcements from the Chairman.

2 Declarations of Interests (Pages 1 - 4)

The Panel is recommended to:

(a) Note the offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table at Agenda Item 2, as disclosable pecuniary interests;

(b) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s); and

(c) Note the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at Agenda Item 2) and to note any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s).

3 Election Review 2016 (Pages 5 - 182)

Report of the Executive Director of Secretariat Contact: Richard Derecki; [email protected]; 020 7983 4899

The Panel is recommended to:

(a) Note the report and the discussion with invited experts;

(b) Recommend to the GLA Oversight Committee that David Smith (former Chief Executive of Sunderland Council) be appointed to provide expert independent advice and support; and

(c) Note the proposal to write to all London boroughs and other relevant stakeholders for comment on the performance of London Elects in providing support to the Greater London Returning Officer.

3

4 Date of Next Meeting

The Panel is asked to delegate authority to the Chairman to decide the date, invited guests and other arrangements for the Panel’s next meeting.

5 Any Other Business the Chairman Considers Urgent

4

Agenda Item 2

Subject: Declarations of Interests

Report to: Election Review Panel

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 16 June 2016

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 This report sets out details of offices held by Assembly Members for noting as disclosable pecuniary interests and requires additional relevant declarations relating to disclosable pecuniary interests, and gifts and hospitality to be made.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the list of offices held by Assembly Members, as set out in the table below, be noted as disclosable pecuniary interests1;

2.2 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any disclosable pecuniary interests in specific items listed on the agenda and the necessary action taken by the Member(s) regarding withdrawal following such declaration(s) be noted; and

2.3 That the declaration by any Member(s) of any other interests deemed to be relevant (including any interests arising from gifts and hospitality received which are not at the time of the meeting reflected on the Authority’s register of gifts and hospitality, and noting also the advice from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer set out at below) and any necessary action taken by the Member(s) following such declaration(s) be noted.

3. Issues for Consideration

3.1 Relevant offices held by Assembly Members are listed in the table overleaf:

1 The Monitoring Officer advises that: Paragraph 10 of the Code of Conduct will only preclude a Member from participating in any matter to be considered or being considered at, for example, a meeting of the Assembly, where the Member has a direct Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in that particular matter. The effect of this is that the ‘matter to be considered, or being considered’ must be about the Member’s interest. So, by way of example, if an Assembly Member is also a councillor of London Borough X, that Assembly Member will be precluded from participating in an Assembly meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about the Member’s role / employment as a councillor of London Borough X; the Member will not be precluded from participating in a meeting where the Assembly is to consider a matter about an activity or decision of London Borough X.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk v1/2016 Page 1

Member Interest Tony Arbour AM Member, LFEPA; Member, LB Richmond Jennette Arnold OBE AM Committee of the Regions Gareth Bacon AM Chairman of LFEPA; Chairman of the London Local Resilience Forum; Member, LB Bexley Kemi Badenoch AM Shaun Bailey AM Sian Berry AM Member, LB Camden Andrew Boff AM Member, LFEPA; Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Council of Europe) Leonie Cooper AM Member, LB Wandsworth Tom Copley AM Member, LFEPA Unmesh Desai AM Member, LB Newham Tony Devenish AM Member, City of Westminster Andrew Dismore AM Member, LFEPA Len Duvall AM Florence Eshalomi AM Member, LB Lambeth Nicky Gavron AM David Kurten AM Joanne McCartney AM Deputy Mayor Steve O’Connell AM Member, LB Croydon Caroline Pidgeon MBE AM Keith Prince AM Member, LB Redbridge Caroline Russell AM Member, LB Islington Dr Onkar Sahota AM Navin Shah AM Fiona Twycross AM Member, LFEPA Peter Whittle AM

[Note: LB - London Borough; LFEPA - London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority]

3.2 Paragraph 10 of the GLA’s Code of Conduct, which reflects the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, provides that:

- where an Assembly Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered or being considered or at

(i) a meeting of the Assembly and any of its committees or sub-committees; or

(ii) any formal meeting held by the Mayor in connection with the exercise of the Authority’s functions

- they must disclose that interest to the meeting (or, if it is a sensitive interest, disclose the fact that they have a sensitive interest to the meeting); and

- must not (i) participate, or participate any further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting; or (ii) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting

UNLESS

- they have obtained a dispensation from the GLA’s Monitoring Officer (in accordance with section 2 of the Procedure for registration and declarations of interests, gifts and hospitality – Appendix 5 to the Code).

3.3 Failure to comply with the above requirements, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence; as is knowingly or recklessly providing information about your interests that is false or misleading. Page 2

3.4 In addition, the Monitoring Officer has advised Assembly Members to continue to apply the test that was previously applied to help determine whether a pecuniary / prejudicial interest was arising - namely, that Members rely on a reasonable estimation of whether a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, could, with justification, regard the matter as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest.

3.5 Members should then exercise their judgement as to whether or not, in view of their interests and the interests of others close to them, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA. It remains the responsibility of individual Members to make further declarations about their actual or apparent interests at formal meetings noting also that a Member’s failure to disclose relevant interest(s) has become a potential criminal offence.

3.6 Members are also required, where considering a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom they have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25 within the previous three years or from the date of election to the London Assembly, whichever is the later, to disclose the existence and nature of that interest at any meeting of the Authority which they attend at which that business is considered.

3.7 The obligation to declare any gift or hospitality at a meeting is discharged, subject to the proviso set out below, by registering gifts and hospitality received on the Authority’s on-line database. The on- line database may be viewed here: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gifts-and-hospitality.

3.8 If any gift or hospitality received by a Member is not set out on the on-line database at the time of the meeting, and under consideration is a matter which relates to or is likely to affect a person from whom a Member has received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25, Members are asked to disclose these at the meeting, either at the declarations of interest agenda item or when the interest becomes apparent.

3.9 It is for Members to decide, in light of the particular circumstances, whether their receipt of a gift or hospitality, could, on a reasonable estimation of a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts, with justification, be regarded as so significant that it would be likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest. Where receipt of a gift or hospitality could be so regarded, the Member must exercise their judgement as to whether or not, they should participate in any given discussions and/or decisions business of within and by the GLA.

4. Legal Implications

4.1 The legal implications are as set out in the body of this report.

5. Financial Implications

5.1 There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None Contact Officer: Rebecca Arnold, Committee Services Manager Telephone: 020 7983 4421 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3

Subject: Election Review 2016

Report to: Election Review Panel

Report of: Executive Director of Secretariat Date: 16 June 2016

This report will be considered in public

1. Summary

1.1 This report provides background information to the London Assembly Election Review Panel.

2. Recommendations

2.1 That the report and the discussion with invited experts be noted.

2.2 That the Panel recommends the GLA Oversight Committee to approve the appointment of David Smith (former Chief Executive of Sunderland Council) to provide expert independent advice and support.

2.3 That the Panel notes the proposal to write to all London boroughs and other relevant stakeholders for comment on the performance of London Elects in providing support to the Greater London Returning Officer.

3. Background

Barnet 3.1 On the morning of Thursday 5 May 2016 problems were reported with the electoral registration lists at 155 polling stations in the London borough of Barnet, which meant that some residents were unable to vote in the Mayor of London and London Assembly elections. The supplementary register rather than the full register was supplied to polling stations. Some residents who turned up to vote and whose names were not on the register were sent away and told to return later, others were provided with alternative advice as to what to do. Following discussions between officers in the polling stations and the town hall, full registers were re-issued and had been delivered to all the polling stations by approximately 10:30am.

3.2 The then Chief Executive, Andrew Travers, stepped down “by mutual consent” on Monday 9 May 2016, with John Hooton, Deputy Chief Executive, acting as Interim Chief Executive while the authority recruits for a replacement. An independent investigation to look at how the situation occurred and to learn lessons from it in time for the EU referendum was launched by the London Borough of Barnet.

City Hall, The Queen’s Walk, London SE1 2AA Enquiries: 020 7983 4100 minicom: 020 7983 4458 www.london.gov.uk Page 5

3.3 The terms of reference of the investigation covered:  how incorrect electoral registers were provided to polling stations at the start of the Mayoral and GLA elections on Thursday 5 May 2016;  an assessment of the number of voters affected and the overall impact;  how the error was addressed on the day of the poll, including: o the involvement of the Greater London Returning Officer; o the advice and guidance provided by the Electoral Commission;  the arrangements that will be put in place so that this does not happen again;  any steps that will be taken specifically for the EU referendum in June, including liaison with the Chief Counting Officer and the Regional Counting Officer; and  any relevant recommendations, for example on process improvements

3.4 The report was published on 1 June 2016 and set out findings as to what had happened and made recommendations to the local authority to help ensure that the EU referendum runs smoothly (attached as Appendix 1). The report found that human error caused incomplete registers to be printed and then distributed to the Polling Stations. Subsequent checking and escalation processes which could have prevented the registers from being used on polling day did not happen. The report also proposes a wider review into the way in which elections are delivered in Barnet.1

3.5 London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden, Andrew Dismore AM, has made a submission to the Panel on the issues experienced in Barnet, including an anonymised spreadsheet of the problems that voters had reported to him and the anonymised emails on which the spreadsheet was based. The submission is attached as Appendix 2.

City Hall 3.6 The counting of votes cast in the elections of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly began on 6th May 2016, the day after polling. This process took place in three count centres across London: Alexandra Palace, Excel, and Olympia. Votes were counted electronically.

3.7 The 14 Constituency London Assembly Members were announced by the relevant Constituency Returning Officers. This took place at the count centres. The first final result came from the Bexley and Bromley count which was produced at 2:53pm, with the final result coming from the North East constituency at 6:33pm.

3.8 The declaration of the 11 London-wide Assembly Members and the Mayor of London was made by the Greater London Returning Officer, Jeff Jacobs. This took place at City Hall once all of the votes were counted. The announcement was delayed by several hours by what were described as “minor discrepancies with the Mayoral vote”. The announcement of the new Mayor was finally made at 00.18 on 7 May.

1 http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=174&MId=8877

Page 6

3.9 London Elects issued the following information explaining what had led to the delay in the announcement:  London Elects confirmed that every vote in each constituency was scanned and registered quickly and accurately by machines provided as part of a contract with e-counting company IntElect;  Those votes fed into the consolidated reports for the three contests: Constituency Assembly Member; London-wide Assembly Member; and Mayoral;  Checks at City Hall on the Mayoral reports, highlighted some small discrepancies in the numbers for each candidate; and  Although these were not in any way material to the overall result, London Elects took the time, working with IntElect, to review and resolve the discrepancies.2

3.10 An internal review from IntElect was commissioned by the Greater London Returning Officer and an independent review of that work has been commissioned through the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) internal audit processes. IntElect’s review and covering letter is attached as Appendix 3 and the draft independent review undertaken on behalf of the GLA is attached as Appendix 4.

3.11 According to the IntElect review and the subsequent internal audit review the reason for the delay in making the declaration was due to minor discrepancies in the first and second preference totals for the Mayoral candidates in the preliminary reports at constituency level. The discrepancies were between the number of first and second preferences for each candidate rather than between candidates.

3.12 On the night measures were taken to re-do the calculations and various checking process took place to ensure the result was robust. The declaration was then made. A number of subsequent tests, including re-running what was done on the night, confirmed that the Mayoral results as declared were in accordance with the scanned and recorded data and hence the results as reported were correct.

3.13 Investigations subsequently found that these discrepancies were due to a piece of computer code that incorrectly constructed the result report as it used data extracted from the raw database in an unexpected order. The reason has been identified as a pre-existing code defect which was also present in 2012, which combined with a subsequent change to the database server configuration in 2015 resulted in the ordering of the data during the calculation of the mayoral figures to be incorrect in 2016 compared with 2012 .

The Performance of London Elects 3.14 The running of the GLA elections is a complex and resource-heavy operation, which involves the coordination of and communication with a wide range of external stakeholders including central Government, political parties, local authorities and the media. The delivery of the elections covers a number of different projects and work-streams including applying the election law, procurement of contracts, ballot paper design, developing and delivering training, publishing voter education materials, election-day management, count day and post-count processed and resources.

2 London Elects press release: https://www.londonelects.org.uk/news-centre/news-listing/election-count-delay-explained Page 7

3.15 Following the Assembly’s review of the 2012 GLA elections, the GLA Oversight Committee agreed a new resourcing model for the 2016 GLA elections. The new model was designed to both draw on GLA-wide resources to provide a flexible resource to support delivery of the elections and to embed elections knowledge in permanent GLA staff. The idea was to build upon the success of the organisation in providing operational Games-time functions for the 2012 Olympic Games. There was also a desire to identify substantial financial savings.

3.16 The agreed model proposed that the election should be run as a project team, rather than a discrete, separate unit. It consisted of three main groups of resource; specialist project management, corporate support, additional secondments and the team expanded in role and remit in the years and months running up to the election.

3.17 The proposed budget for the 2016 elections (over a four year period) was set at £18 million. This figure included a cut of 10% from the 2012 figure. Much of the budget is a fixed cost, covering the fees and charges required by the boroughs.

3.18 The Panel is recommended to request views of how the London Elects team managed the elections from a wide range of relevant external partners including borough election managers and chief executives, election agents, the Met, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Commission and the Open Rights Group. This part of the review would take place over a longer timescale than the first part as we would have to allow for a six-week consultation time period and many of the external partners are going to be fully engaged in the running of the EU referendum.

3.19 The review should seek to set out options and a recommendation for how to resource the 2020 Mayoral and London Assembly elections.

Independent expert support 3.20 The Electoral Commission has indicated that it would like to ensure that the Assembly’s election review be adequately supported with independent expert advice. This is to ensure that the review meets the highest standards of transparency and openness. To this end the Commission has proposed that the Assembly consult with David Smith, former Chief Executive of Sunderland City Council, who has been the Returning Officer for numerous local and general elections and Regional Returning Officer for a number of European elections and for the PCC election. He has been the North East regional lead for all elections. Sunderland has had the enviable position of declaring first in recent General Elections.

3.21 The Panel is asked to agree in principle the appointment of David Smith to provide technical support and advice to its review, and to ask the GLA Oversight Committee to approve the expenditure.

4. Issues for Consideration

4.1 The following guests have been invited to attend the Panel meeting

London Borough of Barnet John Hooton, Chief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Executive; Stephen Evans, Interim Chief Operating Officer; and Davina Fiore, Director of Assurance.

Page 8

City Hall Jeff Jacobs, Greater London Returning Officer; Steve Gowers, Chief Executive Officer, DRS Data Services (IntElect); Sian Roberts, Chief Executive,ERS Group (IntElect); David Esling, Head of Audit and Assurance - Risk Management (MOPAC); and Steve Snaith, Head of Technology Risk Assurance, RSM UK

5. Legal Implications

5.1 The Assembly has the power to do what is recommended in this report.

6. Financial Implications

6.1 The costs of consultancy provided by David Smith will be met from existing scrutiny budgets.

List of appendices to this report:

Appendix 1: London Borough of Barnet: Election Issue Report Appendix 2: Submission from Andrew Dismore AM Appendix 3: IntElect Internal Review Appendix 4: Draft GLRO Independent Review

Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 List of Background Papers: None.

Contact Officer: Richard Derecki, Senior Manager Telephone: 020 7983 4899 E-mail: [email protected]

Page 9 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1

APPENDIX A

LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET: ELECTION ISSUE

Prepared for John Hooton Interim Chief Executive, London Borough of Barnet

May 2016

Mark R. Heath Returning Officer Southampton

Page 11 REPORT CONTENTS

Page

1. Executive Summary 3

2. Terms of reference and Conduct of Investigation 4

3. Background 6

4. How were incomplete registers at Polling Stations? 10

5. Recovery 12

6. Impact and Numbers 13

7. GLRO 14

8. Electoral Commission 15

9. Findings 16

10. Recommendations 20

11. Conclusion 22

Page 12 Page | 2 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1. I was appointed on 10th May in my capacity as a Returning Officer to be the external independent investigator into the events around the elections that took place in Barnet on 5th May 2016. It should be noted that my appointment was on that basis, namely as an independent individual and not in any representative capacity.

1.2. The terms of reference, which were agreed by Barnet with the Electoral Commission are set out in Section 2 of this report.

1.3. The elections on 5th May in Barnet received national attention due to the fact that some electors were unable to vote at the start of polling due to incomplete registers at Polling Stations. The electoral process should never be the story, but in Barnet it was.

1.4. This was very serious. The act of disenfranchisement is the removal of a fundamental right. For that to happen as a direct result of the system (and people) who’s role it is to enfranchise and run elections raises legitimate, significant and serious concerns.

1.5. The report lays out what happened. In summary it was human error that caused incomplete registers to be printed and then distributed to the Polling Stations.

1.6. Subsequent inadequate checking and escalation processes which could have prevented this failed to do so.

1.7. I have made a number of recommendations, some of which relate specifically to the EU Referendum on 23rd in section 10 of this report.

Page 13 Page | 3 2. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION

2.1 I was appointed on 10th May in my capacity as a Returning Officer by the Chief Operating Officer of the London Borough of Barnet to review areas of concern arising from the conduct of the elections in Barnet on 5th May 2016.

2.2 My terms of reference were to review / examine the following issues:

 how incorrect electoral registers were provided to Polling Stations at the start of the Mayoral and GLA elections on Thursday 5th May 2016  an assessment of the number of voters affected and the overall impact  how the error was addressed on the day of the poll, including: . the involvement of the GLRO; . the advice and guidance provided by the Electoral Commission; and  the arrangements that will be put in place so that this does not happen again  any steps that will be taken specifically for the EU Referendum in June, including liaison with the CCO and London RCO  any relevant recommendations, for example on process improvements.

2.3 For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that this report focusses on these issues. Any issues relating to the conduct of individual members of staff will need to be addressed in accordance with the Council’s HR policies and procedures and is outside the scope of this report.

2.4 Given the forthcoming EU Referendum on 23rd June, I was asked (given the terms of reference) to report the outcome of my investigation and findings in a timely fashion so that any matters particularly pertinent to the forthcoming Referendum could be actioned.

2.5 In terms of conducting the investigation, the following methodology was used. I identified 5 relevant people to interview face to face. I sought a range of documentation from Barnet, was supplied with that and I have taken that into account. I also spoke to a number of other individuals, bodies and organisations to obtain information relevant to this investigation, namely representatives of the Cabinet Office (the relevant Government department responsible for Elections), the Electoral Commission, the Greater London Returning Officer’s Office, the Chief Counting Officer and the Regional Counting Officer for London for the EU Referendum, the Returning Officer at Camden, the MD of the company that supplied the electoral management system to Barnet (Xpress) and the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA).

2.6 Presiding Officers were invited to give feedback to me, and I was supplied with the feedback from the 12 that did so all of which I took into account (I consequentially interviewed one Presiding Officer as their evidence was I felt particularly important).

2.7 I was supplied with a dossier of information obtained by Barnet from electors. I was grateful for that, read it all, and took it into account.

2.8 I was also supplied by Mr Andrew Dismore, the London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden with copies of correspondence he had received from members of the public and a summary spreadsheet. Again, I was grateful for that, read it all and again took it into account.

Page 14 Page | 4 2.9 I am grateful to all assisted me. All gave their time freely, no one was reticent or held back even though some were reliving events that they probably would have preferred not to. But all were clear that the facts needed to be established and lessons learnt.

Page 15 Page | 5 3. BACKGROUND

This section of my report provides some background to the electoral landscape, and the situation in Barnet, and is included to assist in understanding the detail of the issues that arose in Barnet on May 5th and my recommendations.

Returning Officers Each Council is required to appoint one of its officers as the Returning Officer for the purposes of running elections. The Council which has appointed that officer is required to provide the officer with sufficient resources to conduct the election and to pay the costs thereof.

The Returning Officer may appoint deputies to assist with the conduct of the election. Such deputies may be appointed with “full powers” (i.e. the power to undertake any duties which are formally the responsibility of the Returning Officer) or with “limited powers” (i.e. the powers specifically identified in the form of appointment).

The Returning Officer plays a central role in the democratic process. Their role is to ensure that the election is administered effectively and that, as a result, the experience of voters and those standing for election is a positive one.

The duties of a Returning Officer are separate from the duties held by that individual as a local government officer. A Returning Officer is not responsible to the local authority but is a separate legal entity to that of the Council which appointed him/her and is directly accountable to the courts as an independent statutory office holder.

While the Returning Officer can appoint one or more persons to discharge any or all of the Returning Officer’s functions, the Returning Officer cannot delegate their personal responsibility for delivering the election.

The Returning Officer is not fettered by the Council’s normal procedures in terms of conducting the election or subject to direction or instruction from members of the Council in respect of the discharge of the responsibilities falling to the statutory office. This reflects the position enshrined in statute that an independent officer is responsible for the proper conduct of the election “without fear or favour”.

Management arrangements for Electoral Services in Barnet The Elections Office is responsible for the various logistical issues relating to the arrangements for polling day such as booking venues for use as Polling Stations, equipping those Polling Stations, recruiting and appointing staff.

On May 5th, the management arrangements for electoral services at the Council were through a line management arrangement which started with the Chief Executive (Returning Officer). Reporting to him was the Assurance Director, to her the Head of Electoral Services and to him the Electoral Registration Manager. There are then a number of Electoral Services Officers, some of whom focus more on electoral registration, but with them all able to work on registration / election duties as required

After May 5th, the Chief Operations Officer was appointed as Interim Chief Executive and at annual council on Tuesday 24th May also as Returning Officer. As a result, he will be the Counting Officer for the EU Referendum on 23rd June.

Page 16 Page | 6 Staffing - training/briefing sessions It is good practice for Polling Station staff to receive training and/or briefing on their role and responsibilities. Quite correctly, this did take place in Barnet for this election. This is, of course, particularly true for such staff undertaking a role for the first time. This practice is firmly recommended in the Electoral Commission’s guidance and is covered in some detail in terms of arranging and delivering that training. In addition, the Commission produces a range of materials to support the training including “A Handbook for Polling Station staff”. This includes reference to the need for Presiding Officers to check that they have the correct equipment and supplies including (amongst other things) that they have the correct register.

Project Planning and Risk Management Attention to detail is critical to good electoral administration. This should include a structured and methodical approach to project planning and risk management. To quote the Electoral Commission: "Running an election is a complex logistical operation with statutory obligations and personal liability for the Returning Officer, involving considerable financial and physical resources, and delivered against extremely tight and inflexible timescales.”

Resources for Electoral Services To operate effectively, a function of this nature needs to be properly resourced with well- trained staff who have a sufficient level of knowledge and expertise. This equally applies to those who have management responsibility for the service. Additionally, at key times of the year, such as the lead in periods for elections, adequate support arrangements need to be in place.

Checking It is a cardinal rule in electoral administration to "check, check and check again". Human beings make mistakes. People who work in elections offices are humans and make mistakes. We all do. But a robust regime of checking (ideally each time by different people) will reduce if not remove that risk.

Escalation When issues are raised or things go wrong, in any organisation or process there needs to be a place – and a system – for addressing that. Escalation needs to be proportionate, but a systemic process needs to be in place

The EU Referendum The Chief Counting Officer (CCO) The Chair of the Electoral Commission, Jenny Watson, is the CCO with responsibility for the management of the EU Referendum. The CCO is personally responsible for certifying the overall result of the Referendum. The CCO has the power to give general or specific directions to COs relating to the discharge of their functions in the Referendum, including directions requiring COs to take specified preparatory steps or to provide any information that they have or are entitled to have.

Regional Counting Officers (RCO) The CCO has appointed an RCO for each electoral region in Great Britain. The RCO (London) is the Returning Officer and Chief Executive at Lewisham. The RCO is responsible for co-ordinating the planning and administration of the poll across their electoral region and for managing the collation of the local totals into a total for the electoral region, which will be fed into the UK-wide result.

Page 17 Page | 7 Counting Officers (CO) In Great Britain, the appointment as Counting Officer flows automatically from the appointment as local government Returning Officer. For the purposes of the Referendum in Great Britain, the local authority area is known as the voting area. The CO is responsible for ensuring that the Referendum is administered effectively in their voting area and that, as a result, the experience of voters and campaigners is a positive one.

The CO is personally responsible for the conduct of the Referendum in their voting area including:

 provision and equipment of Polling Stations  printing of the ballot papers  appointment of Polling Station staff  conduct of the poll  management of the postal vote process  the verification and counting of the votes  transmission of the local totals to the RCO

The duties of a CO like those of a Returning Officer are separate from the COs duties as a local government officer. COs are not responsible to the local authority but are directly accountable to the courts as an independent statutory office holder

The Law Commission’s review of Electoral Law The world of elections is complex. Elections will always raise issues, such as voters believing they should have been on the register, postal voters saying they haven’t had their postal vote etc. Such is a normal election, if there is such a thing. The Returning Officer has powers to correct clerical errors where they arise, and of course sometimes they do. Sometimes the issue is not of the system’s making however. So it is important to be clear that running an election everywhere brings with it issues, conflicts and challenges.

The legal framework adds to the complexity. Such complexity makes the task of running a “successful” and indeed lawful election that much more complex.

The Law Commission’s “Electoral Law: Summary of Interim report” (February 2016) sums to situation up briefly:

“9. Electoral law is complex, voluminous and fragmented. After 1997, many more types of election and local Referendums were created, while recourse to national Referendums grew. Each type of election or Referendum is generally governed by its bespoke legislation. …. 10 More than 17 statutes and some 30 pieces of secondary legislation govern the area of electoral law that is considered by this reform project. Some of their content is repeated, almost word for word, from the “classical” law which is contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”), which governs UK Parliamentary elections and some aspects of local government elections in England, Wales and Scotland. 11 All of the newly created elections use a voting system other than first past the post, for which the classical law contained in the 1983 Act was designed. Accordingly, some of the classical law had to be adapted to account for the different voting system. We call efforts to adapt a classical rule to a new voting system “transpositions”. These have not been consistent, even for elections which use the same voting system. This greatly contributes to the problems of volume and complexity. 12 This poses problems not only for those consulting the law, but also for implementing new or changed policies. Introducing a new election requires replicating every aspect of the existing electoral law, while introducing new Page 18 Page | 8 policy requires many different pieces of legislation for each election type. This is undesirable when, in fact, a large number of rules are shared by all elections. It is not a good and efficient use of Government and Parliamentary resources to draft, and to scrutinise the same change of policy, or new policy, in up to 19 pieces of primary and secondary legislation. Nor is it helpful to those who use electoral law to have such a plethora of sources, and the inevitable differences that creep into the detail of electoral administration of particular electoral events.”

Performance data for Barnet’s Electoral Functions The Electoral Administration Act 2006 gave the Electoral Commission powers to set standards of performance for Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers in Great Britain.

To quote the Electoral Commission:

Prior to the development of this performance standards framework, information on the performance of EROs and ROs had not been collected or analysed consistently nationwide, and there was no mechanism available to assess the performance of EROs and ROs. By setting these standards, the Commission is now able to collect performance information from EROs and ROs in order to assess progress against the key objectives of ‘complete and accurate electoral registers supported by a well- run electoral registration process’ and ‘well-run elections’.

The Electoral Commission publish on-line an annual assessment of the performance of Returning Officers in Great Britain. Their report assesses how well Returning Officers deliver elections each year and shows comparative data: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/performance- standards/performance-in-running-elections-and-referendums

Similarly, the Electoral Commission publishes on-line annual assessments of the performance of the Electoral Registration Officers in Great Britain. This report assesses how well Electoral Registration Officers deliver their duty to maintain accurate and complete electoral registers and shows comparative data: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/performance- standards/performance-in-running-electoral-registration

I reviewed this data for Barnet to provide a context as to their past performance of the election function and electoral registration function using this data, given that this is data compiled by the body (the Electoral Commission) tasked with making that assessment.

Barnet have met all (except one) of the Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer performance standards since 2009. The only exception relates to timing of despatch of poll cards at the 2012 GLA elections where, because of inconsistencies in guidance provided by the Commission and the GLRO, different date parameters were given in respect of poll card deliveries. As a result, Barnet failed to meet the Commission’s performance standard but did meet the requirements of the GLRO.

Page 19 Page | 9 4. HOW WERE INCOMPLETE REGISTERS AT POLLING STATIONS?

4.1 On 29th April 2016, an officer in the election services team at Barnet printed off the electoral registers for placing in ballot boxes ready for collection by Presiding Officers on Wednesday 4th May for polling day on 5th May.

4.2 All election offices and Returning officers make use of electoral management systems (software packages) to assist in the delivery of the electoral process, both elections and electoral registration. Barnet uses Xpress Software Solutions (Xpress) as do many other Councils / Returning Officers.

4.3 The officer accessed the relevant part of the Xpress to print the registers to be supplied to Polling Stations, and then opted to access an option enabling certain voters to be removed from the register.

4.4 Not all registered voters can vote in all elections. In these elections in Barnet, overseas voters could not vote.

4.5 There are two options: those voters can be removed from the register to be supplied to Polling Stations. Alternatively, if this option is not exercised, they will appear crossed through (and hence still unable to vote) but visible on the face of the register.

4.6 In my experience, the more common practice is to include all types of electors in the registers supplied to Polling Stations, but simply have crossings through for those that are not eligible to vote in a particular election. I believe this practice helps Polling Station staff, as it is easier to explain to someone that they are not eligible to vote (name crossed through for good reason) than to try to explain why they do not show on the register at all

4.7 The decision to remove overseas voters from the register did not of itself create the problem.

4.8 But in opening this screen and exercising the option to enable certain voters to be removed from the register, the system / screen then provided a further option, namely “Only include the above (i.e. exclude standard electors and only include the electors marked)".

4.9 The Officer ticked this box as a result of which “standard” or ordinary electors were not included in the printed registers and only those in the list of marked voters (now excluding overseas) were printed. Therefore the only electors who were included on the registers supplied initially to Polling Stations were:

 New Electors  Young Electors  Over 70 Electors  Crown Servants  Lords  Service  Euro(local)  Euro(Local + Euro)  Overseas Lord  Voluntary Mental  Postal Voters  Proxy Voters

4.10 The registers were then put aside ready for inclusion in the ballot boxes. They were not checked by anyone else in the elections office.

4.11 When the ballot boxes were collected by Presiding Officers on the evening of Wednesday 4th May (the day before Polling Day), the logistical arrangements Page 20 Page | 10 for collection had changed, with the result that Presiding officers were unable to check the contents then and there as fully as they had in previous years. They were told they did not need to check the ballot box contents as that had been done by the staff in the elections office. The focus of that check had been – is there a register in the box rather than is it the correct register. Whilst documentation such as the ballot papers had been checked, the Registers had not been checked other than there was one in the ballot box. On collection, the Presiding Officers saw the elections staff and showed them all one by one their contents and signed off that they had the correct contents in their ballot boxes.

4.12 Despite this, one Presiding Officer on the Wednesday night did check his register and had sufficient concerns to call in. In normal circumstances, the Presiding Officer would have contacted their designated Polling Station Inspector, but due to health / family circumstances, the Polling Station Inspector was not available. Accordingly a member of the elections team – the same person who had printed the registers – took on that role and took the call.

4.13 The Presiding Officer raised the issue but was advised that the register was correct and not incomplete. The issue was not escalated further. The Presiding Officer was so concerned that they raised the issue again early the following morning (Polling Day), and did after some discussion receive a replacement complete register before 7:00AM.

4.14 The remaining incomplete registers were opened by Presiding Officers on the morning of May 5th prior to opening their Polling Stations.

Page 21 Page | 11 5. RECOVERY

5.1 On arrival at the elections office at 6:00AM on 5th May, a senior member of the elections team was advised of the telephone call between a Presiding Officer and a member of the elections team the previous night. The senior officer was also advised that the Presiding Officer had called again that morning.

5.2 Following a discussion in the office, it was agreed that the elections officer would take a fresh register to that Presiding Officer which the officer did (and in doing so look at what the Presiding Officer had concerns about). This was done.

5.3 The elections officer called from the Polling Station to confirm that electors did appear to missing from the printed copy originally supplied.

5.4 By this point it was 7:00 AM, Polling Stations had opened and calls were coming in from Presiding Officers about electors not on the register. The Senior Member of the team, having heard several calls of the same nature realised that there was major issue. As a result he said that Presiding Officers should be instructed that if an elector had a Poll card, they should record the elector number and issue a ballot paper. Presiding Officers would need to call in and check for those without Poll Cards.

5.5 The senior officer then started to print fresh registers, call in staff to assist and advised the Returning Officer of the problem and what he was doing about it at 7:19 AM. He also arranged for fresh registers to be taken to the closest Polling Stations for checking. This was done and confirmed. As a result, the activity in the office focussed on the production and delivery of fresh registers to all Polling Stations. The Returning Officer arranged for additional staff to deliver the registers and also advised the election agents of situation and plan.

5.6 By 7:45, the issue was in the media, and information was given to the Barnet Communications Team to both address the queries and clarify what was being done. By 8:00 AM, members of the team were in contact with the Electoral Commission and the GLRO. Part of the conversation with the Commission related to the possibility of using the emergency proxy regime and a way of enfranchising those who had not been able to vote earlier in the day, and would not personally be able to return to their Polling Station that day. Subsequently, that was confirmed by the Commission, and subsequently the communications team arranged for appropriate publicity to be given on this option. This was taken up by around 38 voters.

5.7 In parallel, the Returning Officer sought advice from Leading Counsel, advising him of the issues and steps taken / proposed to be taken. Leading Counsel advised that he considered the steps taken were correct and there was nothing further that could or should be done within the law. The Returning Officer had identified the problem, and was ensuring correct registers were supplied to the stations. He agreed with the approach of allowing those with Poll Cards to vote. This reflected also the legal advice obtained by the GLRO.

5.8 The time when fresh registers were delivered to each of the polling stations can be seen in Appendix 1.

Page 22 Page | 12 6. IMPACT AND NUMBERS

6.1 Once the issue was clear to officers in the elections team, as well as taking steps to address the issue, Presiding Officers were requested to compile information on the situation. This included : - What voters who attended were told - Whether those who were on the register were allowed to vote - Were those not on the register allowed to vote with a polling card and if so from what time - What information the Presiding Officers managed to collect as to those they turned away (including numbers) - The time that Presiding Officer received a “correct” register - Any other problems / issues

6.2 That information was compiled (unedited) into a spreadsheet for me. I have attached that as Appendix 1.

6.3 This information is not definitive, of course, but is the best indication of at least the scale of the impact.

6.4 I have also attached at Appendix 2 turnout figures for 2012 as compared to 2016.

6.5 No one would suggest that the impact of events of 5th May was anything but very serious. Disenfranchising even one person is unacceptable.

6.6 However the scale of the issue and the impact would appear to have been in the hundreds rather than the thousands as was initially reported.

Page 23 Page | 13 7. THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE GREATER LONDON RETURNING OFFICER (GLRO)

7.1 The GLRO is appointed by the GLA and has overall responsibility for coordinating the elections across Greater London. The GLRO is a senior officer of the GLA, independent of the Authority and the Mayor in respect of their electoral functions.

7.2 Barnet first contacted the GLRO at 8:17AM after which there was a fairly constant stream of calls and updates. This included direct contact between Barnet’s Returning Officer and the GLRO.

7.3 From the chronology supplied by the GLRO’s office, I consider that the GLRO was advised of the issue, what was being done, and when in a timely and appropriate fashion. The Deputy GLRO advised me that they felt the same

7.4 Barnet advised the GLRO that they were seeking Leading Counsel’s advice as to their options but especially around emergency proxy votes. The GLRO also sought advice from Leading Counsel. I consider that this was entirely appropriate given the GLRO’s role

7.5 In my opinion, the GLRO was involved in a timely and effective manner.

Page 24 Page | 14 8. ELECTORAL COMMISSION

8.1 The Electoral Commission were first made aware that there was an issue at 7.03 AM on 5th May as a result of a call made by a member of the public to their offices

8.2 They then spoke with one of the senior officers at Barnet and obtained details of the problem, and the intended actions

8.3 The Commission’s initial advice was clear and reflected the decision that had been made in the elections office – get fresh registers out to Polling Stations as soon as you can. They were also in agreement with the approach relating to the use of poll cards to enable voters with them to vote.

8.4 The Commission were kept in touch with events as they developed.

8.5 During this time, the Commission suggested the possibility of using the emergency proxy provision as a way of enfranchising those who had not been able to vote earlier in the day, and would not personally be able to return to their Polling Station that day. The Returning Officer agreed, and subsequently the communications team at Barnet arranged for appropriate publicity to be given on this option. This was taken up by around 38 voters.

8.6 From the chronology supplied by the Commission, I consider that they were involved in a timely and effective manner. The Commission advised me that they felt the same

8.7 In my opinion, the Electoral Commission were involved in a timely and effective manner. I also believe their advice and guidance was robust and appropriate.

8.8 Given the issues that arose, I would suggest a more comprehensive checklist for Presiding Officers may be useful in the context of reviewing their Handbook for Polling Station Staff, if that is practicable and deliverable.

Page 25 Page | 15 9. FINDINGS IN RELATION TO THE TERMS OF REFERENCE

I would wish to make some general points before turning to my specific findings as against the Terms of Reference I was set.

Planning and Risk Register There was a project plan and risk register. In talking to the Electoral Commission, they felt that the standard over recent years as to the overall quality of planning was high. From my inspection it is clear that the relevant documentation was bespoke and reflected local issues and circumstances. However, whilst there was a plan and risk register, it clearly did not address the issues that occurred and so did not work.

For the Referendum, it is essential that the issues identified in this report are addressed in the risk register and project plan. Going forward, robust planning and risk management arrangements addressing the key basic activity (such as checking) must be put in place.

Checking This was clearly not done to an adequate level in the case of these elections with the consequential result. This approach needs to be built into all the future arrangements for electoral administration.

The printing of the registers was not checked within the elections office. The changed logistical arrangements for ballot box collection meant that Presiding Officers were told they did not need to check their contents of their ballot boxes as the office had done that.

Presiding Officers provide an essential part of the checking process. They should not only check that they have the right number of “things” in their ballot box , but should also look through those things and ensure they are correct (ballot papers, register etc).

This sort of basic activity is an essential part of the back office process of running elections. This needs to be built into the planning and risk registers and done.

Escalation The initial call from the Presiding Officer should have (as a matter of process) been passed immediately to someone other than the person who printed the registers for consideration. There is also a need to ensure that matters raised such as this are escalated to the Returning Officer and Head of Electoral Services. There needs to be a systemic approach to escalation, robust and clear to all.

The Involvement of the Returning Officer The Returning officer was first made aware of this issue at 7:19 AM on 5th May. In my view he should have been made aware of the call to the elections office on the 4th May (Wednesday night) from the Presiding Officer. Even on Polling Day, he should have been called first thing and alerted to the issue then.

Resources The starting point of any discussion of resources for running elections is the legal framework which is clear. The Council which has appointed that Returning Officer is required to provide the Returning Officer with sufficient resources to conduct the election.

It is therefore a matter for the Returning Officer to state their needs. Page 26 Page | 16 There was a specific issue in these elections relevant to this issue that is pertinent. The normal practice at Barnet is that the Presiding Officers when they collect their ballot boxes check their contents then and there. For this election they did not. A factor in the decision not to do that was that the room that they had allocated for this task this year was not big enough to enable them to do that.

What was introduced this time was that the elections office staff checked that all the contents going into the ballot boxes was there for every station. This was communicated to the POs when they attended their training sessions.

Whatever the practice is for the collection of ballot boxes, the Presiding Officers must check the contents. If the practice at Barnet is that they are checked when they are picked up so that any issue can be raised with officers, then the space / rooms must be allocated to enable that to happen.

Going forward, the Returning Officer must enable Presiding Officers to carry out this important check. Many indicated that on opening their documentation on Thursday morning they were immediately aware that their registers were thinner than they would have expected.

There are other ways of enabling Presiding Officer to check and feedback any issues in advance of Polling Day, and many distribute their ballot boxes on the Tuesday, giving a full day for feedback(and to consider and address any issues).

The Returning Officer will wish to reflect on the best arrangements for Barnet, but also review the arrangements with pace so that for 23rd June, Presiding Officers can undertake this important role.

Xpress Software Solutions As already mentioned, all election offices and Returning officers make use of electoral management systems (software packages) to assist in the delivery of the electoral process, both elections and electoral registration. Barnet uses Xpress as do many other Councils / Returning Officers.

There is no suggestion that the technology failed. The system printed what it was instructed to print and was not an issue in this election for the other 236 local authorities using the Xpress system, nor has it been before.

I have discussed with the Managing Director of Xpress the possibility of removing the “include/exclude option” completely. However, the extent to which this option is used by other councils is unclear and making changes to a very important part of the system this close to the Referendum when it will be used by all 237 Xpress clients is not advisable. Even with extensive testing, there is always a risk of error that could affect every Polling Station register, generating a much larger issue than that experienced on 5th May. In the circumstances, the prudent approach is to provide clear advice about the impact of using the Include/Exclude option and the need to check the printed registers before sending to the Polling Stations. Crucially, in checking the printed copies of the Polling Station registers it is important to ensure that the printed elector numbers run consecutively as this is a clear indication that all electors have been included.

Subsequent to 23rd June, Xpress will canvass all users to better understand the current use of the “include/exclude” option and establish if it can be presented in an alternative form. .

Page 27 Page | 17 Findings in relation to Terms of Reference

1. How incorrect electoral registers were provided to Polling Stations at the start of the Mayoral and GLA elections on Thursday 5th May 2016 a. It was human error that caused incomplete registers to be printed and then distributed to the Polling Stations. b. Subsequent inadequate / non-existent checking processes which could have prevented this failed to do so.

2. An assessment of the number of voters affected and the overall impact a. Information compiled by Barnet gives a number of between 500 – 600 Voters. However, there is no way of knowing how many of those turned away did return later in the day b. Given the variables that could impact on this figure, it is perhaps safer to say that in terms of scale, the numbers affected would appear to have been in the hundreds rather than thousands

3. How the error was addressed on the day of the poll a. I have laid out in my report what was done to address the error on the day. b. In my view, the recovery was in the circumstances effective c. A quick decision was made to re print and whilst delivery took some time, having personally driven around Barnet at 7:00AM on a Thursday morning, getting the registers out across all Polling Stations by 10:30AM was no mean feat. d. There were issues in relation to communications between the elections office, Polling Station Inspectors and Presiding Officers. Communications on the morning of May 5th between these three groups was (at best) difficult and at times impossible. Given the issues raised at Polling Stations, Presiding officers were trying to call their Polling Station Inspectors. When unable to do so (as the Inspectors were calling their Polling Stations / the elections office) Presiding officers tried to contact the elections office. At the point of crisis, the system overloaded. Few of us have ever experienced such a situation, but the need to be able to give a message out to all Presiding Officers quickly is clearly of paramount importance. There is a need to have a fresh look at this, one option may a group text system. But the arrangements need revisiting. I should add that I doubt many other Returning officers have a sufficiently robust regime in place that could cope with the events experienced in Barnet on May 5th. They may wish to reflect upon this in their planning e. There were also issues on the morning of 5th May for voters who tried to contact the elections office and rang the Council. They met recorded messages based on standard scripts which, given the circumstances did not address the issues the voters were facing and probably inflamed feelings / frustrations. In a situation like this, the ability to quickly change the script / recorded messages and provide more immediate 1:1 contact over the phone should be available.

4. The involvement of the GLRO a. As set out in my report, I believe that the GLRO was involved in a timely and effective manner (as does the GLRO)

5. The advice and guidance provided by the Electoral Commission a. As set out in my report, I believe that the Electoral Commission was involved in a timely and effective manner (as do the Commission). I also believe their advice and guidance was robust and appropriate.

Page 28 Page | 18 6. The arrangements that will be put in place so that this does not happen again a. I have laid out some recommendations both for the 23rd June and also beyond designed to avoid this happening again b. That starts with the arrangements for 23rd June but also requires I believe after 23rd June a review by the Returning Officer as laid out in my recommendations c. Xpress Software solutions will also ensure clear messaging goes out to all users before 23rd June and after 23rd June actively investigate the possibility of removing the functionality that enabled the printing of the incomplete registers

7. Any steps that will be taken specifically for the EU Referendum in June, including liaison with the CCO and London RCO a. I have laid out some recommendations specifically for the 23rd June b. It is clearly of critical importance that the Counting Officer at Barnet, the Regional Counting Officer (London) and the Chief Counting Officer work very closely between now and 23rd June. Having spoken to them all, I have no doubt that this will happen c. I was struck by the attitude of the elections team, and not only their appreciation of the failings on 5th May, but their determination to address those and have robust arrangements ready for 23rd June. They are already well on their way to picking up many of the points I have highlighted. d. It is however I believe inevitable that they and the process in Barnet leading up to and on 23rd June will come under intense scrutiny. The events on 5th May must have taken its toll on the staff (although I saw no evidence of that). Taking those factors into account, alongside the need to have and be able to re-assure the electorate in Barnet that the process for 23rd will be robust, I believe that additional capacity and oversight (oversight is a crucial aspect of this formulation) for 23rd June is necessary. e. For that reason, I am recommending oversight and additional capacity is brought in as determined by the Regional Counting Officer(London).

8. Any relevant recommendations, for example on process improvements a. These are set out in my recommendations and within the report. b. I would however wish to emphasise the following areas that need addressing: i. The process of checking / compliance within the elections team requires complete review, revision and codification. It must be clear to all and robust. ii. There needs to be a systemic approach to escalation that is again clear to all and robust, and withstands last minute changes in personnel. iii. The method of operation must ensure that the Returning Officer is involved at the earliest opportunity iv. The Returning Officer should arrange for the preparation of a training and development plan for all staff with responsibilities for the electoral services function

Page 29 Page | 19 10. RECOMMENDATIONS

For 23rd June: 1. The Regional Counting Officer (London) should identify a suitable Returning Officer to support the Barnet Counting Officer in overseeing the conduct of the EU referendum on 23rd June.

2. The Counting Officer (and the Returning Officer identified to oversee as set out above) should work with the Regional Counting Officer (London) who will set his requirements as to additional oversight, supervision, the content of risk and project plans and other requirements as he sees fit.

3. For the avoidance of doubt, rigorous and multiple checks must be made at all stages of the process and there must be a robust escalation process in place

4. Appropriate arrangements must be made to enable Presiding Officer to check the contents of their ballot boxes and advise the elections office in case of issue, such reports must be appropriately recorded, escalated where necessary and followed up.

5. The Counting Officer must be informed of any issues that he should be made aware of (in accordance with a new systemic escalation procedure) at once.

6. The Counting Officer shall ensure that robust systems are in place regarding communications between Presiding Officers, Polling Station Inspectors and the elections office on polling day

7. Xpress (the Election management Software supplier) should send out an appropriate communication to all Xpress users making them aware of the issue that occurred in Barnet on 5th May and the checks that should be taken to ensure this is not repeated on 23rd June.

8. The Chief Counting Officer should send out a similar communication to all Counting Officers (whether users of Xpress or not) so all are aware of the issue and can undertake additional appropriate checks to ensure all are printing full registers for Polling Stations.

9. The Chief Counting Officer should ensure that the Regional Counting Officer (London) has sufficient resources so as to support Barnet in whatever way he deems appropriate

Post 23rd June: 10. Xpress should consult with other Councils to establish what changes, if any should be made to remove the possibility of re-occurrence.

11. The Returning Officer should initiate a review of the way in which elections are delivered and how the electoral services function operates with a view to producing suitable recommendations on resources, future management, support arrangements, operating practices, compliance issues and responsibility/accountability for the electoral services function.

Page 30 Page | 20 NOTE: I do not wish to fetter how the review is undertaken, but I would offer some observations (rather than recommendations) on the review:

 The review would benefit from external challenge  The Review this needs to take account of a range of concerns and issues relating to the operation of the election function in Barnet that I have been made aware of. I make no comment on the merits of those concerns. They may / may not have substance. No election is ever run without issues. It is the nature of an election. Issues arise that need addressing by the Returning Officer and his team. The electoral process is highly constrained by a legislative framework within which the Returning Officer must operate. But in my view these concerns need addressing. I would suggest that any review should facilitate the raising of concerns that predate this matter and fell outside my Terms of Reference. It needs to “clean the house / purge….”  The review needs to clearly be led by the Returning Officer and reflect both their statutory role and the right of the returning officer to council resources  The Returning Officer should as part of the review arrange for the preparation of a training and development plan for all staff with responsibilities for the electoral services function which shall be implemented, to include training on the use of the EMS(Xpress).  The communication methods and channels between the elections office, Polling Station Inspectors and Presiding Officers (and vice versa) must be improved and function in situations such as that experienced on 5th May. For example, a group texting system may be an option.  There are clearly some points raised by the facts of this matter that need to be addressed for 23rd as well as going forward. Printing of key documents, use of the EMS(Xpress) and checking are the key ones.  I would also suggest a more comprehensive checklist for Presiding Officers may be useful. It may be worth discussing this with the Electoral Commission in case they are prepared to lead on this in the context of reviewing their Handbook for Polling Station Staff.

Page 31 Page | 21 11. CONCLUSION

11.1 I would like to thank particularly all those to whom I spoke and those who supported me and my work from Barnet for their courtesy and assistance.

11.2 Unfortunately, this is not the first review of elections I have undertaken leading to a report of this nature. In an ideal world, this sort of activity should be unnecessary. The conduct of an election is a complex process and, by its very nature, requires almost total compliance with the law and with good practice guidance. In reality, that does not always happen.

11.3 It would be remiss of me not to recognise the work of many on 5th May to address the issue. The Presiding Officers in Polling Stations bore the brunt and given the communication difficulties that occurred, did I believe a sterling job in very difficult circumstances.

11.4 Looking to the future, this report contains recommendations some of which specifically relate to the forthcoming EU Referendum. A recurring theme throughout has been the need to restore confidence in the electoral process. I consider it essential that, if that objective is to be achieved, it will be necessary to move forward on the recommendations within this report without delay in so far as they relate to the Referendum, and thereafter pursue the other recommendations.

11.5 Attention to detail is critical to good electoral administration. The recommendations which I make relating to a comprehensive review include reference to operating practices and compliance. In my view, this needs to needs to be implemented to ensure that the Council and its officers are not exposed to similar problems in the future and that the electoral system in Barnet operates with the rigour which the electorate are entitled to take as a given.

11.6 By definition, I have been asked to look at something that went very wrong. There was much that I saw read and heard that was good. I was particularly aware that the senior officers were very aware that something very serious had gone wrong and as a result fundamental review and change (neither of which would necessarily be easy or comfortable) was required. That is a positive step, and I wish them well on that journey.

Mark R Heath 27 th May 2016

Page 32 Page | 22 Appendix 2

Memorandum re election maladministration in Barnet

I have been very concerned about the conduct of elections in Barnet for some time, and the maladministration of the London elections last month was more the rule than the exception.

I set out below some of the internal conclusions into previous election failings in Barnet by way of background.

Whilst Mr Heath has conducted an investigation into the ‘wrong registers’ issue, this is merely the tip of the iceberg of the systemic election problems in Barnet. Even so, and even bearing in mind the many conflicts of interest in the investigation, he has identified a catalogue of human errors that should not have occurred.

His report will be presented (in absentia) to the Council’s General Functions Committee on 9th June, to which I have submitted a list of 30 questions which remain unanswered.

Mr Heath’s terms of reference were extremely tightly drawn, to exclude those systemic failures and recurrent issues relating to postal votes, proxy votes, poll cards, location of polling stations, training and experience of elections and polling station staff, and the election hotline.

Barnet Council now accept that these problems are of concern, but do not propose to address them until ‘the end of the year’ which will be too late for the Referendum.

I include with this submission an anonymised spreadsheet of the problems that voters have reported to me and the anonymised emails on which the spreadsheet is based. It can be assumed that this is not a full list of all those affected. ( Named copies can be supplied, but not for publication to protect the identities of those concerned). These complaints (apart from the ‘wrong register’ problem) have occurred every election in Barnet that I can recall.

I am already receiving complaints from voters who are having difficulties concerning , for example, postal votes, for the Referendum.

I would urge you to look into these issues, as otherwise the integrity of the Referendum in Barnet cannot be assured.

Page 33 Andrew Dismore AM London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden

Addendum re previous inquiries Summary of 2008 London Elections Review: 2008 London Elections: In 2008 polling stations located at Courtland JMI School, Barnet Impact and Dollis Infant School, had late deliveries of ballot papers and could not start issuing them until 7:20-7:25am despite polls opening at 7am. Three polling stations located at Goldsmith Avenue, N11 (Box 25 and 26)and St Peters Church, Edgware (Box 160) ran out of ballot papers due to a software error that meant no ballot papers were allocated to Box 26 and there was an over allocation of ballot papers for Box 25. Election staff split the number between the two but did not realise this would be insufficient. Calls from Presiding Officers at Stations 25 and 26 "were not acted upon with the level of seriousness/urgency required" according to the Review report. Station 26 ran out of ballot papers for 80 minutes and Station 25 for approximately 30 minutes. The report says "This process caused distress to the Presiding Officers concerned, anger amongst electors unable to vote and possibly 30 electors not casting their votes." The Review report also says: "It is hard to work out why the many calls from Stations 25/26 did not elicit an appropriate response..." The 2008 Review report identified problems with preparation for the elections, problems with communications on the day and inexperience of staff, and its recommendations included that: - A thorough, possibly independent, review of Barnet's elections processes from end to end "would probably be timely". - Future elections should be prepared for on a project basis with full time officers seconded sufficiently in advance. - A proper call management and recording system is a necessity on election day.

2010 General and Local Elections: In 2010 there were long queues at some polling stations - particularly Dollis Infants School and Algernon Road Multi-Cultural Centre in West Hendon. The Presiding Officer at Dollis Infants reported he turned 12-14 voters away at 10pm who had been in the queue before 10pm, although other witnesses suggest that this number was higher - perhaps 30-40 - and Hendon Labour Party said they were aware of people deciding not to wait in the queue and therefore not to vote. In addition, some proxy votes were issued with the wrong names on them, and some postal votes were received late or not at all. The Review found this was because the external printers were not able to meet the agreed deadline and that "there was no written contract in place with the print company, which meant there was insufficient clarity in respect of specific service requirements - in particular around deadlines." 26 complaints about the elections were made by members of the public and Hendon Labour Party submitted a dossier of 91 complaints and comments about the process. As in 2008, the 2010 Review report also identified problems with preparation for the elections and inexperience of staff and stated that - "the team lacked the deep expertise of election process and regulations that some other councils benefit from as a result of having an experienced election manager." and that "The project plan...did not contain enough contingency planning and should have been more detailed." The Review report recommendations included that:

Page 34 - the appointment of an experienced elections manager should be considered prior to the next large- scale election - there should be a review of the location of polling stations and of polling districts to ensure that they have an appropriate number of electors. - A more detailed project plan for the next election, with clearer contingency arrangements should be put in place. For copies of the Election Review reports for 2008 and 2010 discussed at General Functions Committee see: 11 September 2008 – Review of London Elections: http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/Data/General%20Functions%20Committee/200809111900/Agenda/ Document%204.pdf 25 October 2010 – Parliamentary and Local Elections Review: http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/Data/General%20Functions%20Committee/201010251900/Agenda/ Document%2013.pdf

Page 35 1)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:01 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet Vote Blocking BEFORE Today

Dear Andrew,

I saw on Twitter you are asking for information regarding the situation in Barnet. I was tweeting all the Mayoral Candidates as of last night to warn something was wrong BEFORE today. Here's the basics.

- 2015: having moved in with my fiancé to Barnet last year, we both registered living at our address after a letter asked for the number of residents. The council tax rates have changed accordingly.

- 2016: I registered to move my vote from Lambeth to Barnet online before the election. I've voted in every election since 1997, including in the London Boroughs of Sutton, Camden and Lewisham with no problems or questions.

- Letter arrives from Barnet Council, asking for a photocopy of my passport as they cannot verify my identity. Photocopy is made and sent by post before the deadline.

- As of yesterday, no polling card for me (or my fiancé). So I call Barnet council's Electoral line. It's an answer machine (which incidentally), states you do not need a polling card. However, my voting status is still not confirmed so I keep calling back but there's no way past the machine; it just hangs up.

- Call Barnet via the complaints department; get put through to a member of staff who explains the following:

A) It had been decided that the Electoral Offices will take no calls at the current time; B) They could not verify my identity and I never returned my passport details. When I queried that as wrong, I was then told; C) Actually the reason was (now) because they'd sent letters asking how many people lived at the flat and there had been no reply, so I wasn't registered in the Borough - except we have letters showing the Council Tax change as of 2016. When I pointed this out, her story changed to; D) Please email in a photo of your passport as proof of ID and you'll be allowed to vote.

Images were sent immediately via email but no reply from [email protected] was forthcoming.

What's also important about this, is that the second reason, the Council Tax, has also apparently been used to apparently deny my fiancé a polling card as well, and if you read between the lines, this is despite us paying Council Tax.

In a more recent development, I went to my nearest polling station which is 4 minutes away from my front door (Grahame Park) this morning (9am) to see the following:

- a young couple turned away and denied their vote; - the voting station empty; - and when I asked for my vote, I was told my polling station was 12-15 minutes walk away in Burnt Oak. Admittedly this may be the case, but I was unable to know this and smacks of bizarre geographical placement! - the Presiding Officer showed no interest in the issues, even when I said he should check Twitter.

I tweeted all main Mayoral Candidates last night; that's on my Twitter feed , only Sian Berry showed any concern.

Page 36 2)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:43 To: [email protected] Subject: Voting - I had problems getting on the electoral register

Hi Andrew,

I had no problems voting this morning (for yourself and Sadiq), but I did struggle to get onto the electoral register in the first place.I recently moved to the area and provided the council with a paper registration application, which was not recognised. I then applied online. I heard nothing for quite some time and tried to call but found it almost possible to get through. I sent a chaser email which was not responded to, I had to send another email threatening that I would be speaking with the local paper if they did not confirm I was on the electoral register before they bothered to respond.

Although I realise this is less important than the problems this morning what it does do is demonstrate the ineptitude of the council and the electoral registration services. And it gives an indication of why things went so wrong earlier today.

Let me know if you need any more information.

Many thanks,

Page 37 3)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:16 To: [email protected] Subject: Voting shambles.

Hi Andrew I turned up at my polling station this morning together with my partner and our polling cards only for me to be informed that I had been removed from the polling register! No reason for this was offered but after a phone call was made by the people on the desk I was informed that as I was about to move home I could not vote. I was eventually re-instated and was able to vote.My partner and I have been residents in East Finchley for some forty years and have never experienced this before. If we had been moving home I could understand the problem but as we are not it all seems like a bit of a mess-up!! Kind regards and good luck in the election.

Page 38 4),

5),

6)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:08 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet disenfranchisement

Hi,

I moved to Golder's Green back in September, and filled out and mailed the electoral roll registration for me and my two housemates in the same month. It stands out in my memory as the only time this years that I have needed to post anything.

We didn't receive our polling cards, this was irritating but not unexpected for me - I lived and voted in Brixton for 6 years and never received one.

On arriving at the station today I was turned away as were many others. The presiding officer was kind enough to take my details and call me when the new lists arrived. My name is not on the revised list, nor are the names of either of my flatmates.

I have voted at every election that I was eligible to vote in since I was 18. I'm incredibly disappointed in Barnet council and their apparent inability to organise this election correctly.

Page 39 7)

Sent: 06 May 2016 21:19 Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Barnet polling station

[Address A]

I initially went to North Finchley Library who then sent me to the polling station at Our Lady of Lourdes on Bows Lane.

I made the first phone call at approximately 10am.

Sent from my iPhone

On 6 May 2016, at 21:10, > wrote:

- where do you live and which polling station did you end up voting at?

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM, > wrote: I called Barnet's voting line before going because they hadn't sent us polling cards.

The woman who answered, [Officer A] was very unfriendly and said myself and (my husband) registration was on hold waiting for further info ( we had registered several times online because we received four register to vote letters, despite registering online as soon as we received the first letter) I said we hadn't been asked for further information and she said, oh I don't know why we haven't sent you a letter, there is nothing you can do, she wouldn't let me talk to a manager and didn't inform me that there were issues. The only option she offered me was to send a letter to them if I wanted to complain. I wasn't going to accept that so I called Cllr Geoffery Cooke who called Barnet to find out what had happened, he found out that we were registered but they had registered us at the upstairs flat instead of ground floor, they also hadn't sent out polling cards to us so I had to guess which polling station to go to ( second time lucky)

[Officer A] on the phone was incredibly unhelpful and without Cllr Cooke myself and my husband wouldn't have been able to cast our vote.

Page 40 8),

9)

Sent: 06 May 2016 20:56 To: Andrew Dismore Subject: Electoral registration

Don’t forget Barnet putting houses in wrong polling district (Eagle drive area) Heybourne Crescent (part) should be in Col but it is in BO Absurd misprints in electoral register (where streets are listed at the end of a PD) Blocks such as Oxford being given The Concourse as their address, when it is not…this might result in electoral correspondence (PVs,etc) not being delivered correctly. If you want me to I will come and look at the Elec register and write this all up. As Clement Attlee said of an MP he sacked from ministerial office “The man’s not up to it”

Sent: 10 May 2016 19:04 To: Andrew Dismore; [Cllr A]; Sargeant, [Cllr B] Subject: Heybourne Crescent

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/

Either The OS have parts of Heybourne Crescent in the wrong ward Or LBB have put it in the wrong ward. I discovered this some time ago. I think [Cllr B] said LBB did know about it….but can’t quite remember what she said. They have done nothing. Also mentioned to [Cllr A]. Not up to copying this onto a doc but perhaps somebody is, The ‘Independent’ people should know about this and other errors i am happy to identify on Colindale register

Sent: 10 May 2016 20:45 To: [Cllr B] Cc: Andrew Dismore; [Cllr A] Subject: Re: Heybourne Crescent

It is on the register in BO-or at least it's not in Colindale -but the map shows that it should be in Colindale,or at least the block that backs onto South Green should be. The question is whois correct ,the OS or Barnet.? Have a guess!! The detailed errors need making explicit with investigation pending. Note also: 1. Blocks such as Oxford given address of The concourse in this year;s register.This could mean electoral info (and PVs?) not getting delivered. 2.The fact that the addresses in HSA and HSB polling districts are given differently 3. Houses in Magpie Close were put in the wrong polling district 0n TWO year's electoral register.These were corrected once I raised with Barry and sent to ERD. 4.List of streets at the end of at least one of the PDs in Colindale absolute gobbledygook..(HSA or HSB)

Page 41 10)

Sent: 05 May 2016 11:08 To: Andrew Dismore; Subject:

Andrew, Having finally got through to a human being i was signposted to this link . http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/177405/FORMS-Particular- Election-Proxy-MAY16.pdf Sos t hibr s teache he Equality Act 2010 as if you are elderly and do not have access to the internt you have no way of effectively doing an emergency proxy . This was under the diasabled tab. There isnt one for confinement to hospital. Next issue is it is a PDF so you would need a printer and scanner in the hospital to return the application with a signature to the correct dept. end of story , so basically unless i break the law and pretend to be you [Person C] there isnt anything i can actually do other than fly up to watford . Andrew there should be an option by phone using your unique voteing card number. going to vote in a while i will ask there.

Sent: 05 May 2016 19:20 To: Andrew Dismore Subject:

Just to confirm that we were unable to resolve my daughter’s issue and discovered at 2.30 and again 4.30 that my son also didn't get added to a list and at Dollis they seemed not to have a revised list.

Hope it goes well. We managed to use 4 out of 5 votes from [Location A]. If you win by 4 votes it was us!! Sent: 11 May 2016 13:55 To: Andrew Dismore Subject: Re: election maladministration: latest action

In our case Andrew,

They failed to enter [Elector C] on the list despite my posting the form with completed details. The system for emergency proxy is an Epic fail as we couldn't arrange via phone and using security questions and following the proxy presenting ID , which is what i expected. It is simply discrimination to only be able to do this if you have access to the internet and even then the messages on the options do not tell you to look on the internet.

we were not affected by this admin error

Page 42 11)

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 5:06 PM To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Thank you

Congratulations! We wish you all the best as our Assembly Member and hope that you will be successful in getting a proper enquiry. This sort of cock-up seems to happen rather a lot in Barnet. In a previous local election we, along with many others, did not receive our postal votes even though we were assured they were on the way. We are still waiting. Perhaps too, in the light of investigations elsewhere, Tory tactics in the Hendon and Finchley Golders Green constituencies should be looked at.

We think it is time that our archaic system of voting should be modernised. ID cards could prove citizenship, be secure and enable voting via a link from any polling station in the country. It is scandalous that ability to vote relies not on citizenship from the age of 18 (or soon perhaps 16) but on a haphazard ad hoc registration process. It is no wonder that people feel disenfranchised.

Page 43 12)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:54 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet - Election roll errors

Went with wife to Chalgrove Polling Station at 9am. Both managed to vote, without polling card. I was not on the list. Down to an industrious and helpful returning officer, took half an hour to get confirmation I was allowed to vote.

Our son was registered for a postal vote. See email attached. He was on the voting list as a paper vote, not as a postal vote. His postal vote did not arrive. Clearly this is a system error, not just a printing error.

This would have been his first vote and it was denied to him. He could not attend as he is in Leeds, which is why a postal vote was applied for.

Page 44 13)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:01 To: [email protected] Subject: Unable to vote

Dear andrew I am now in Aberdeen but I was turned away from my polling station in bow lane at 7am this morning. I had tried to apply for a postal vote but Barnet said they didn't receive my application although my husband did and indeed used his postal vote. My daughter has just told me to email you with this as I understand I am not alone.

Page 45 14)

Sent: 06 May 2016 16:53 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet postal votes came out too late.

Dear Andrew,

We were not able to vote this time as we were away till today and Barnet did not send out the postal votes before we went away..

Extremely annoying and worth a moan at lest if necessary.

You have our total support and the support of many in the Jewish Community despite the current annoyances. It is ashame that my wife and I did not have the chance to show that support in the usual way.

Page 46 15)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:27 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Polling card

Sorry to ramble on. Basically those with polling cards should have also been sent away if those without were being sent away. Equality, a very Labour principle.

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:45 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Polling card

Basically those that took their polling card were being put at an unfair advantage to those that did not. The barnet results should be invalid.

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:40 To: [email protected] Subject: Polling card

Whether someone took their polling card to the polls is irrelevant to the voting process? Why ask?

Page 47 16)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:46 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet local election

Hi Andrew,

I saw your dossier mentioned in the guardian online.

My partner and I did not receive our polling cards prior to today's elections, we both live on st albans road in high barnet. We were not the only ones in this situation at our polling station at Barnet Library and a few of us had to wait while a nice lady from the council (I assume) rang a number to manually check that we were on the register.

When she got through all of us had been registered and we're able to vote, it's just strange that we didn't get a polling card. They had also not received the register of eligible voters (so couldn't check it themselves while we were there), they only had a list of people who couldn't vote apparently.

This happened at 8am. Good luck with your investigation.

Page 48 17)

Sent: 05 May 2016 20:37 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet election shambles

Dear Andrew

I believe you are gathering details of Barnet councils incompetence (or corruption) over voting today. My wife and my polling cards actually had the details of the wrong polling station on them, meaning we had to travel to another station in order to vote. It wasn't a problem but what if we had arrived at the original station at 9.45pm?

Page 49 18)

Sent: 06 May 2016 14:22 To: [email protected] Subject: RE:Disappointed

Dear Andrew

I felt the need to contact you as I am really upset and disappointed with the way that Barnet have handled the election process. Firstly I did not receive a voting card so after having dinner with friends I went to my polling station at S tAugustines Church (I have voted there for the last 25 years) only to find that they moved to the Orion School, by the time I got there it was closed.

I only hope and pray that you guy’s got the majority vote without my vote!!

I am upset that I did not get my chance to vote for both you and Mr Khan.

Many thanks for your continued updates, they are very helpful.

Good Luck with the outcome of the Barnet vote

Page 50 19)

Sent: 05 May 2016 16:49 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Barnet Council voting

Dear Andrew

I was turned away from my polling station this morning at 8.05am. I did not bring my polling card as it was never sent to me. I was told that given that I was also not on their list as printed, I would be unable to vote. I complained profusely but ultimately in vain.

I am unable to return before 10pm today due to work reasons. I have just completed an emergency proxy but not yet confident that it will work.

This is a scandal of huge proportion in my view and will ultimately cost votes. Sent: 05 May 2016 18:31 To: 'Electoral Registration Office' Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Emergency proxy - Barnet Council

Why was this NOT processed before now. My wife made a special journey at 5.30 and now cannot make it due to childcare responsibilities. I am outraged by this shambles and will be making a formal complaint.

From: Electoral Registration Office [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 May 2016 18:22 Subject: RE: Emergency proxy - Barnet Council

Thank you for your emergency proxy, this will be processed and your proxy will be able to attend your polling station on your behalf.

Electoral Projects Support Officer Assurance Group London Borough Of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP Tel: 020 8359 5563

www.gov.uk/registertovote  please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

Sent: 05 May 2016 18:17 To: Electoral Registration Office Subject: RE: Emergency proxy - Barnet Council

Please can you acknowledge receipt URGENTLY.

Sent: 05 May 2016 16:50 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Emergency proxy - Barnet Council Importance: High

Please find attached emergency proxy. My wife will be voting on my behalf.

Page 51 20)

Sent: 05 May 2016 08:48 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Subject: INCOMPLETE ELECTORAL REGISTERS & REJECTION OF VOTERS WITH POLL CARDS

Constituents of Cllr Kitty Lyons(Hale Ward) report their names missing from the register even though they are long-term electors. They have been turned away from Annunciation Scool even though they have their Poll Cards with them.

Examples : [Elector D] and her son

This may call into question the fairness of the Poll, and I am making a formal complaint.

Page 52 21)

Sent: 05 May 2016 07:49 To: [email protected] Subject: Unable to vote today

Along with 5 others this morning as no one's name is on electoral register

Page 53 22)

Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 08:57:15 +0100 To: Subject: Voters turned away from polling station this morning

Dear Mr Dismore,

You may be interested to know that I, and many other voters were turned away from the Rectory Lane polling station in Edgware when it opened this morning because they had the wrong lists. I will go back later, but some of the others were unable to do so.

Good luck today!

Page 54 23)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:35 To: [email protected]. Subject: Voting today - not allowed to

Hi Andrew

I went to vote at 0705 in Edgware today. Went to the first Polling Station at New Stonegrove Community Centre and there was a sign on the door re-directing us all to the Polling station on Hayling way, Green Lane Edgware.

I pulled up to find my neighbour cross because he and his wife had not bee allowed to vote and he was leaving. He had his Poll Card with him. I also had my Poll Card with me.

I was not allowed to vote because my name was not on the list. I showed them my Poll Card but it made no difference. I didn't exist.

Very disappointed and frustrated - first time ever I've not voted. And cannot vote now at all because out this evening and not back til after the Polling station has closed.

Page 55 24)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:36 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet Polling issues

Dear Andrew,

I saw on the Guardian website that you wanted people to let you know if they'd been turned away from polling station. I was turned away this morning, info below:

I turned up at 6:55 and waited five minutes for the polling station to open. It was the All Saints CE School polling station. I was first in the queue and when they couldn’t find my name they asked if I could wait and deal with others in the queue first. They checked about five people and they were all also not on the list. Many of us (including me) had our polling cards.

The man who appeared to be in charge was in quite a panic and trying frantically to call someone. He finally got through to that person and seemed to have been told that this was a problem in other stations, and that the lists were not complete.

He then asked for everyone’s attention and told us we’d need to come back later, when hopefully the issue would be resolved. Luckily, I can go back later, but I spoke to two people who said they couldn’t and were obviously quite upset.

Barnet council’s statement that the problem was only for those without their polling cards is incorrect as I, and many others, had our cards.

I was there for around twenty minutes and didn’t see anyone arrive who was on the list.

Page 56 25)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:37 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Polling this morning

Andrew

I was turned away from a polling station in Edgware with my kids this morning, despite having my polling card with me. This situation is completely unacceptable and clearly could affect the mayoral result.

As an aside, I had two of my children with me. Not a good way to teach them about our venerable democracy.

Page 57 26)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:43 To: [email protected] Subject: Refused a vote

Dear Andrew,

Today at 7:45am, I went to the Broadfields School polling station in Edgware to cast my vote before work. Unfortunately, I was told that they did not have my name on the list, therefore I couldn't vote. I was told to come back at 10am, however I explained that I was unable to do so because of work, at which point they said they didn't know what else to do. After telling them that I would inform media outlets, they said "Please - we need all the help we can get!". Nobody quite knew what to do. They did give me a phone number to call, however it took me to an automated system, and eventually hung up on me without putting me through to an operator. I am heading off to Bristol for work, and therefore will be unable to head back to the polling station. I have filled out an emergency proxy form, however have not received any confirmation yet, so I am doubtful it will work. This whole voting process should be scrapped and held again at a later date.

Page 58 27)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:45 To: [email protected] Subject: Refused vote - Avenue House polling station, Finchley

Dear Mr Dismore

I read on the Guardian website that you wanted to hear from people who were refused a vote.

I went to Avenue House polling station in Finchley at 7.20 this morning. I had both my polling card and photo ID with me but was told that I couldn't vote as my name wasn't on the list.

I can go back after work, but there were several people in front of me who couldn't so the staff were taking a note of their names and addresses. They were also advising people that they might be able to get an emergency proxy vote.

I hope that's helpful.

Kind regards

Page 59 28)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:53 To: [email protected] Subject: London elections 2016: voting shambles in Barnet – live updates on the Guardian website

Dear Andrew,

I arrived at St Stephens House (Avenue House), N3 polling station at 8:10 this morning.

Both myself and the lady in front of me had our polling cards with us but weren't on their list and were turned away. Requesting we come back later.

The ladies were very apologetic but couldn't advise us on when new lists were available or if we would be able to vote if/when we did return.

I assumed I was in the minority but it appears not so.

Page 60 29)

Sent: 05 May 2016 13:57 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet Polling

Dear Andrew,

I went to the polling station on Widdecombe Way, N2 at 7.05am. There were five people in front of me and one just leaving. Of the eight voters who were there during my stay, two were on the list and got to vote. Six of us were turned away, four of whom had polling cards. In our household, I did not receive a card, my wife did and my daughter received two identical ones. Truly an epic display of incompetence. I feel for the poor staff at the station, they were in despair within ten minutes of the place opening.

I will try again this evening.

Good luck and I hope I get to vote for you…

Page 61 30)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:03 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet polling

Dear Andrew,

I read on the Guardian that you're compiling information on people refused the vote this morning.

Very simply I turned up at my polling booth near East Finchley station at around 08:05 and was asked if I have my polling card, I said no, they checked their list and said they didn't have me there. I asked what that meant and they said if I wanted to vote I would need to come back later as they'd printed off an incorrect list. I'm lucky enough to have the time to go back after work but there were a number of people complaining that the morning was their only chance to vote.

Page 62 31)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:08 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet

I was turned away from Hampstead Garden Suburb polling station at Norrice Lea synagogue this morning. I was told I wasn't on the list. I had woken up at 6am (an hour earlier than usual) to go before work because I knew I wouldn't be able to go after work. So I have effectively been denied the right to vote.

Page 63 32)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:14 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet polling debacle

Mr Dismore

Further to your request for people to advise you if they were refused a vote this morning please see below:

Polling station: The Dining Room Avenue House East End Road Finchley N3 3QE

Time: approximately 0830

Polling card taken: Yes

What I was told:

😡😡Name not on list therefore not permitted to vote 😡😡Despite showing polling card was again told no. This did not matter as my name not on list.

😡😡noticed my street had only about a dozen names despite there being at least 80-100 eligible voters on street (small estate)

😡😡Had my number on register written on separate piece of paper and when I enquired as to why was told was for own records. Asked them to remove as did not want it to show I had voted

😡😡 was told by [Officer C] this was a London wide problem over which they had no control

😡😡found this odd as had lots of people across London telling me they had voted

😡😡 [Officer C] was writing people's names down ... Not sure what she intended to do with this and refused to have mine added as was concerned they would use this to 'doctor' votes

😡😡was asked to come back later and said what if I am unable to do so. They had no response

😡😡 [Officer C] picked up mobile whilst I was chatting to her and didn't say excuse me or apologise.

😡😡not one person whilst I was there was on the list (approx 15)

😡😡 155 affected polling stations is a big issue and frankly totally unacceptable

Page 64 33)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:20 To: [email protected] Subject: Voting shambles

Hi Andrew,

I saw on the Guardian website that you were compiling evidence of the almighty c*ck up in the voting process for Barnet this morning.

I went to Trinity Church Centre on Nether Street, North Finchley N12, at approximately 0720 hrs this morning and had my poll card with me. When I arrived, the presiding officer was already surrounded by five or six visibly upset punters who were remonstrating with him about the fact that their names weren't on electoral register/list. I hung back a bit and had a listen, and then approached the table where they were checking lists. I presented my poll card and was told "Sorry, you're not on the list either". I managed to sneak a peek at the list while they were checking it and saw that my flatmate's name was on it, but there appeared to be rows and rows of asterisks or similar where I'd expect names to be. I'm not really sure if that's relevant or not, or even if I was imaging things because it was pretty early for me! Anyway, they said there was nothing that they could do and that I'd have to come back later, then wrote my name on a bit of notepaper. Ordinarily I get a bit fighty about things like this, but seeing as there were already half a dozen people laying into the presiding officer I decided to leave them all to it!

I'm going to go back later on to try to cast my vote, but only because I managed to rearrange my plans for this evening.

Good luck finding out what the hell happened!

Page 65 34)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:21 To: [email protected] Subject: Voting in Barnet

Dear Mr Dismore

Arrived at my polling station at about 7.15am but was refused a vote. I had my voting card, but my house was not on the list. There were other people also in the same situation. I luckily can go back to the polling station when I return from work. My son, also was refused but is unable to go back to the polling station so has lost his vote. We are very loyal Labour supporters and were very upset by the farce which occurred this morning.

Page 66 35)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:26 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Voting probelms

Dear Mr Dismore,

Just to let you know that my wife and I were both refused a vote as our names were not on the lost. My polling station is: Trent CE Primary School in Cockfosters, EN4 . We didn't have polling cards with us but were told to return with them so we can vote. We got to the station at 8am.

Page 67 36)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:35 To: [email protected] Subject: Turned away from polling station

Dear Andrew

In response to your request for info on polling stations. I was turned away from summerside school in N12 this morning after being told I could not vote without my polling card. I was told to come back later but was not given a time to return.

Page 68 37)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:38 To: [email protected] Subject: Refused the right to vote

Hi Andrew,

I hope you’re well.

I thought I would send you my account of what happened this morning following your call for residents to email you.

I attended my polling station in Finchley, St Andrew’s Church, at around 8:15am to vote. I walked up to the registration desk, was asked for my polling card and explained that I didn’t have it as it clearly states on it that you wouldn’t need it in order to vote. They asked me my name and address, looked at their list but I wasn’t there so they turned me away and told me to go home and come back later with my polling card as their list was incomplete. They had been told not to allow anyone through who didn’t present their polling card. Unfortunately I won’t have a chance before 10pm to go back (which is why I specifically went before work) which means I won’t get to place my vote... I am less than pleased and wanted the opportunity to get my vote in for Labour!

It would be wonderful if stations could be opened tomorrow.

Page 69 38)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:53 To: [email protected] Subject: FW: East Finchley voting arrangements

Dear Mr Dismore

I understand that you are compiling a dossier on the problems at polling stations in Barnet this morning.

In short, I went to the polling station at the Finchley Youth Theatre in East Finchley at 8.30am. I had my polling card with me. I was told that the register did not have my name on it, but because I had my polling card with me, I was able to vote.

I emailed the Constituency Returning Officer for Barnet when I got into work this morning (copying in my local MP and Ward Councillors). I attach a copy of my email.

I wish you luck in getting to the bottom of why this happened.

Page 70 39)

Sent: 05 May 2016 14:57 To: [email protected] Subject: Refused a vote in Barnet

Bishop Douglass RC High School, East Finchley, 7.15am, I took my polling card.

I was first told that I wouldn’t be able to vote, period; then another person on duty said ”don’t tell them that, tell them to come back later”. Complete chaos.

I will be returning later to vote.

Page 71 40)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:06 To: [email protected] Subject: Voting in Barnet

Hello Andrew

Firstly, wishing you the very best of luck for today! You already have my vote. In fact I was door knocking for you in the general election and was so disappointed by the result.

I did eventually manage to vote this morning but there seems to have been both chaos and inconsistencies in how it was then dealt with - you probably know about these already. If not, this was my experience:

We arrived at 7.20 WITH our polling cards and were told we were not on the list. We were told, despite having polling cards, that we could not vote if we were not on the list and there was "nothing we can do" and to come back later. We strongly argued we could not, that it was our right to vote, and we stood our ground. The staff, however, were quite intimidating, and I fear most people would have simply left. (NB I don't blame the staff as they were in an impossible situation.)

We were given a helpline to call - nobody answered. After about 15 minutes we were eventually told we COULD vote as we had our polling cards with us. In the meantime they'd turned several people away.

It's all very well saying it's "resolved" now, but this is too late! Many people can't come back later on, or would feel disinclined to do so after the experience this morning; yes, there are proxy votes in place before 5, but people are at work and will not necessarily be able to do this.

The fact is many in Barnet have not been able to vote on equal terms with others. That, to me, is deeply worrying, and if the vote in Barnet is close I'd seriously question the validity of this election.

I understand you're raising concerns about this and I hugely appreciate that, and the other good work you're doing for our borough.

Page 72 41)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:17 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet Polling

Hi,

I was turned away at Danegrove Primary school at around 7.10 this morning. I had my polling card but was not on the list.

My wife (same address) was on the list and was able to cast her vote.

Page 73 42)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:20 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet voting

Good afternoon,

I went to vote at 7.30am at St Mary's Coptic Church, Golders Green. I was informed that there was a problem with the polling lists and I wasn't listed (my flatmate was on the list). I was asked if I had my polling card (I didn't), and told I could vote if I had it with me. They referred me to the staff running the station, who told me it was a problem across the borough and asked if I could return and vote later.

Page 74 43)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:29 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet polling issues

Good afternoon Andrew.

I tried to vote this morning at approx 07:15. I arrived with my polling card, which was checked, and then told I was not allowed to vote as my name/address was not on their register. They took my name and details from my card, and said they would try to report this error. The reason for going so early was due to the fact that I will not be able to attend tonight, so now my vote is wasted. At the time, there must have been 10-15 people in the same situation as me, most of who said they could not return.

I read the statement below from Barnet, which was clearly incorrect.

"We are aware of problems with our electoral registration lists this morning at polling stations in Barnet which have meant that a number of people who had not brought their polling card with them were unable to vote."

Everyone this morning had their polling card, however it was viewed as useless without the address being on their list.

Please let me know if you need any more information.

Polling Stn:

St Mary and St Johns School, Bennett House, Hendon, London, NW4 4QR

Page 75 44)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:30 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet Voting

Dear sir

I attended the New Stonegrove Community Centre at 7:25 this morning, and despite having my Polling Card was unable to vote as my name was not on the list.

I will try and go back tonight

Page 76 45)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:33 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet voting

Dear Mr Dismore,

I went to vote at about 1pm today, without my polling card, and was told I was not on the register. The staff gave me a card with a number to call regarding voting enquiries in Barnet. I called, and was told I was not registered to vote. This is definitely untrue, as I had been sent a polling card a fortnight or so earlier. I was told there was nothing I could do to be able to vote in this election.

Page 77 46)

Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 14:15:57 +0000 (UTC) To: [email protected] ReplyTo: [Email Address for Elector E] Subject: Turned away from voting.

Hello Andrew,

I was at North Finchley Library this morning at around 7.05am and was unable to vote. I did not have my polling card with me but I saw others that did that were also told they couldn't vote. The officer was on the phone trying to sort it and when he came off the phone he handed me a slip of paper with Barnet Council helpline on and told me it was out of their control. My home was not listed at all and that was the case with everyone else there that I saw.

I am hoping to return before 10pm tonight to try again. I will go back with my polling card this time.

I was told to inform you of this. Do let me know if you're able to take any action.

Page 78 47)

Sent: 05 May 2016 15:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet voter

Hello

Turned away from polling station in St Johns church hall on Friern Barnet Lane around 820am because I didn't have my polling card. Told I could come back later with it, and would then be able to vote. Fortunately, I should be able to do so on this occasion.

Page 79 48)

Sent: 05 May 2016 16:00 To: [email protected] Subject: Unable to vote in East Finchley

I arrived at the polling station just after 7am this morning to find a number of very frustrated people being turned away because their names or house numbers, including mine, were not on the voting list. I did not have my polling card with me but many others had and they were still turned away.

I left the polling station at 7.15am to go to work and many people had gone in and out of the polling station without being able to vote. Staff were making phone calls and seemed bewildered. They began collecting names of all the people who were not on the list and advising them to return later.

I am still at work and will be able to return to the polling station to vote later today. However, many won't and I think this is a serious matter.

Page 80 49)

Sent: 05 May 2016 16:39 To: [email protected] Subject: Voting dossier

Attended cranbourne gardens polling station at 0710 this morning.

Not on the list. Neither were three other family members (not attending at that time). My son who registered in mid April was on list.

They took my name and number and said they would call which they did at 1219 to day all OK.

I am now out of London although hope to be back in time to vote, although had been hoping to vote early to avoid this.

Page 81 50)

Sent: 05 May 2016 17:14 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet polls chaos: Grove Road polling station

Hi

I understand you are gathering materials about the polling fiasco throughout Barnet this morning.

I attended the polling station on Grove Road, EN4 at 7.15am.

I was able to vote, although as I arrived I witnessed three people before me and two people after me in the queue being turned away. At least two of these people were turned away despite having their polling cards with them.

[Officer D] was on the phone throughout, using phrases along the lines of, "We're in it deep here - almost no-one we've had in this morning has been on the list".

Barnet Council have stated in the press and on their website that this issue only affected people who turned up to vote without their polling cards.

This is categorically untrue: I witnessed people with polling cards being turned away.

I would glad to hear your thoughts on correcting this misleading statement and establishing the facts of this morning's farcical and undemocratic situation.

Page 82 51)

Sent: 05 May 2016 17:50 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet Voting Problems

In response to your Facebook post.

I went to vote at St Edward the Confessor church hall in Golders Green this morning at 8:30, I had my poll card with me. I was told that my name wasn't on the list and it was explained that the lists were incomplete and that this was a problem across the borough.

They were recording the names, addresses and telephone numbers of those who could not vote. They were also handing out an enquiries number (020 8359 5577). The people staffing the station said that something would happen about this situation but they did know what this would be or when it would happen.

Page 83 52)

Sent: 05 May 2016 19:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Polling troubling

Hi Andrew,

Heard you're compiling a list of irregularities.

I was turned away at 8.05 at the polling station next to new Southgate station (not sure of name). Did not have my polling card with me. Staff told me there were problems with the list across the borough and to come back later.

Page 84 53)

Sent: 05 May 2016 19:57 To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Barnet election shambles

Dear Mr Dismore

In response to your request for voting experiences today:

At 7am today my wife and I attended the polling station in the Baptist Church at the corner of Stanhope Avenue N3 and East End Road. We both had voting cards. My wife had previously phoned Barnet Council to check she was on the register (as we were confused by the postal request for individual registration) and was told she was.

At the polling booth we were told neither of us were on the register. Nor were any of the ten or more people also there to vote at opening time. We were shown the register listing everyone in our street (itself a breach of regulations as presumably many had not given permission for this) and it was clear that most of the house numbers were missing.

I asked the polling clerk and then the registration officer if I could use my polling card as proof of entitlement and have a voting slip. They said no. I asked for a form to make a formal complaint: he gave me a slip of paper with a phone number on it.

At 710 I had to leave for Heathrow aiport, having already booked a flight to Belfast at 930 specifically so I could vote before travelling. Later in the day my wife tried to organise an emergency proxy vote for me but was unable to.

What do you guys plan to outsource next to companies that put profit before the wider needs of society? The air we breathe?

Page 85 54)

Sent: 05 May 2016 20:28 To: [email protected] Subject: Voting problems

Dear Andrew

I read in the guardian that you are collecting accounts of problems with today's election. Here is my account.

I am a resident of Barnet and went to vote today at about 7.20am. I took my polling card with me and showed it to the officer at the appropriate desk. I was told that I was not listed and therefore could not vote. The polling staff were very helpful and professional, but clearly they were as confused and concerned as I was. They gave me the Barnet Helpline number and told me to contact them. I tried repeatedly to phone the helpline but was unable to get through.

I emailed the barnet electoral officer and the electoral commission during the day. They advised me to return to vote later, which I did this evening and was successful in voting. I have since emailed both the electoral officer and commission to make a formal complaint regarding the problems today and asked for a response.

Barnet council issued a statement saying that the only people who were turned away, were those who did not have polling cards. This is incorrect, as I had my polling card with me this morning, I showed it to the electoral officer and was refused the opportunity to vote.

I have also seen the problems referred to by Barnet Council as a printing error, however I saw both versions of the electoral lists. The incorrect version this morning and the correct version this evening. The incorrect version was only about four pages in length, while the correct version was about 50 pages long. It seems very strange to me that anyone could confuse the two.

I strongly believe that we have a duty to hold our democratic institutions to the highest account. I see it as the duty of the authorities to unconditionally demonstrate that no fraud or deliberate tampering has taken place and to confirm that this has not impacted the outcome of the elections. I also believe that the decisions leading up to this mistake should be analysed and those responsible asked to answer for why these problems occurred.

Page 86 55)

Sent: 05 May 2016 21:29 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Unable to vote this morning

Dear Andrew, I understand you are looking into the disgraceful events this morning in Barnet where registered voters were not on the lists suppled to the tellers at polling stations and that you want accounts from people who were turned away so here is what happened to me. I live at [Address B] with my father, [Elector F]. We both received our polling cards over a month ago. This morning I set out to vote at my designated polling station, Our Lady of Lords RC school, Bow Lane, N12. I arrived at around 8.20am to be told I was not on the list to vote. Straightaway I was asked if I had my polling card which I did not as I know I don't need it to vote. They said that I would be able to vote if I had it and next to one of the tellers was a pile of voting cards. The young man teller then thought about trying to guess my voter number based on the fact that whilst I was not on the list, my father was so they had his number. The older lady teller however did not agree with this idea and said she had called someone and they should have a new list in 10 minutes. As I was on my way to work, I couldn't wait especially as they did not seem not confident in this timeline. At this point, the older lady teller suggested I come back later. I did go back this evening after work, armed with my polling card but I was now on the list and there were no problems. However I did have to cancel plans to visit my disabled younger brother this evening or I would have missed the opportunity to vote. I hope my account is of use to you. Let me know if I can be of any assistance.

Page 87 56)

Sent: 06 May 2016 05:34 To: [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Electoral Concerns in Barnet

Dear Mr Dismore,

A friend forwarded the post on the Finchley and Golders Green Labour Party Facebook page. I was one of those voters affected yesterday at the poll, although I stood my ground and insisted that they allow me to vote. This was at 7.30am at the Hale Lane polling station (the Harvester Car Park). I have included the email correspondence with Barnet on the matter.

One thing you may not be aware of is that at Hale Lane we also had a broken ballot box that was not sealed. Although I have raised both issues with both Barnet and the Electoral Commission, in both cases they have sent me a standard form reply which does not address my concern about this. Clearly no one has actually read my email at all.

I hope this is helpful for you to know.

Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 at 17:10 Subject: Re: Electoral Concerns in Barnet To: Electoral Registration Office

Dear [Officer B], While that may partially address the issue of voters being turned away, it doesn't help those who do not have the time or the opportunity to return to the polling station. Furthermore this does not answer my query about a broken (and therefore unsafe) ballot box. I would appreciate a proper investigation into why that might be allowed to happen. Your sincerely,

On Thu, 5 May 2016 at 10:29, Electoral Registration Office wrote:

Dear

Thank you for your email.

If you arrived at your local polling station this morning and your name was not on the register, please be assured that edited lists have since been distributed and you can now re-visit your designated polling station to vote.

We hope this resolves your query and we apologise for any inconvenience caused.

[Officer B]

Electoral Officer,

Electoral Registration Office

Page 88 Assurance Group

London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

Tel: 020 8359 5580 Sent: 05 May 2016 08:33 To: Electoral Registration Office Subject: Electoral Concerns in Barnet

Dear Sir or Madam, I wish to lodge a formal complaint regarding the electoral practices in Barnet today. I arrived at the Harvester Car Park polling station on Hale Lane at 7.30 this morning, to be told that I could not vote as my name was not on the electoral roll, despite the fact that I had registered, and had my polling card with me as proof. There were four other voters being told the same thing. When I complained that this was not satisfactory, the presiding officers called someone (presumably at your office) to be told that there was a mix up with the list, and that as long as voters had their polling card (which clearly states it is not needed to vote) they could at least vote today. One of presiding officers commented on how she had thought the electoral roll list was much thinner than usual. Once I had completed my ballot paper, it was then discovered that the ballot box was faulty, could not be sealed and was in fact open. I am extremely concerned at these practices, and would appreciate a response. It would be very easy, under these circumstances, to commit electoral fraud, and I am concerned that practices in Barnet are not democratic or safe. How many other people will have been turned away at the Polling Station today? And how can we guarantee that papers will be counted and not tampered with while the ballot box is compromised? Yours faithfully,

Page 89 57)

Sent: 07 May 2016 22:42 To: [email protected] Subject: "No taxation without representation"

Dear Andrew

Congratulations on your election victory. Sadly, as you know, I and many other constituents in Barnet were denied the opportunity to express our democratic will.

See the email below, sent to Barnet Council yesterday.

Please ensure the voice of disenfranchised people in Barnet is now heard so that this issue can be resolved satisfactorily, as soon as possible.

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: "No taxation without representation" Date: 6 May 2016 at 01:30:25 BST To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ov.uk, Theresa Villiers

Dear Barnet Council

"No taxation without representation"

I am writing to inform you that, due to a ‘clerical error’ beyond our control, my partner and I are no longer in a position to pay our Council tax. We apologise for any inconvenience this causes.

Please advise, as soon as possible, on the legal position, given that Barnet Council’s incompetence has prevented us from expressing our democratic right. We would like to be reassured that you would not seek to extract this unfair tax through the courts.

We would like to reassure you, in turn, that the ‘clerical error’ will be addressed just as soon as those responsible for the polling catastrophe in Barnet – from the returning officer downwards – stand down.

Once again, we apologise for any inconvenience this causes.

Page 90 58)

To: Andrew Dismore

Hi Andrew,

A asked me to drop you some info on what happened to T.

She registered at our new address in Underhill in good time before the deadline and also submitted her postal vote application and got a confirmation email from the council that it had been received.

To date no postal vote arrived at our address. She therefore was unable to vote in the Mayoral and GLA elections or the Underhill byelection.

Page 91 59)

To: [email protected]; Subject: Voting problems in Barnet Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 13:00:03 +0100

Dear Andrew,

My family experienced a number of cock-ups relating to the recent London elections.

My sister had applied for me to be her postal proxy vote, as she lives abroad, and the Council asked me for a signature refresh on my postal vote, which I have had for ten years. There were no changes relating to my mother.

I phoned the council a month before the election to ensure that my family registration was all well and good, and was assured that my mother had no issues, and that i would receive a postal vote for myself, and a postal proxy vote for my sister. in the event, I received two poll cards around a week before the election, with my name on both, but different poll numbers. only one poll card was a postal poll card. I then only received one postal vote, which I used successfully. On the day, I had to use the other polling card to cast the second vote in the polling station.

When my mother went to vote in the polling station as usual, at around 3pm, she was told that I had voted for her, and that she would not be able to vote. I advised her to retrieve her polling card from the station, and insist that it was proof that she was registered and should be able to vote. The polling clerks denied that they still had her polling card, and issued her with white ballot papers, which were sealed and kept separately. She was not informed of whether her vote was counted or not.

There was no reason for my mother to have any issues whatsoever, as she has changed nothing about her registration. She has voted in every election in the UK since she arrived in 1983, and is extremely angry and upset.

I hope this assists you in your dossier of evidence.

Page 92 60)

Sent: 13 May 2016 21:51 To: Andrew Dismore Subject: Polling day incompetence

I gather you want information about difficulties voting which occurred in Barnet after 10am.

I experienced two. One was that I went to cast a proxy vote on behalf of my husband at about 3.15, and his name was not on the list of proxy votes. They did let me cast his vote because I had his card with me and they wrote down his name. But if I hadn't had the card there would have been a problem. The other event was that my neighbour went to vote on his way back from work at about 3.30 and couldn't vote without his card, which he therefore had to come home to get (luckily he had kept it, unlike some).

Page 93 61)

Sent: 17 May 2016 16:48 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Hi Andrew,

I did not receive a poll card and when I went to vote I was turned back that I was not on the register. I phoned Barnet councilelectoral register and was on the phone for 15 minutes demanding why I was not on the register. I demanded for my reg number and barcode number. I was informed that there were problems with the list. I went back to the polling station with my number. On getting there, I was told that the complete list has arrived and I was allowed to vote.

Please let me know if they need me to give a statement in person.

Page 94 62)

Sent: 17 May 2016 16:48 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Hi Andrew,

I did not receive a poll card and when I went to vote I was turned back that I was not on the register. I phoned Barnet councilelectoral register and was on the phone for 15 minutes demanding why I was not on the register. I demanded for my reg number and barcode number. I was informed that there were problems with the list. I went back to the polling station with my number. On getting there, I was told that the complete list has arrived and I was allowed to vote.

Please let me know if they need me to give a statement in person.

Page 95 63)

Sent: 17 May 2016 15:46 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations Dear Mr Dismore I saw [Elector A] being turned away from the Algernon Road polling station as her postal vote arrived late, the day prior to the election, and as she had not brought the voting slip with her was told she could not vote. she was elderly and could not walk backwards and forwards twice to the polling station.

Page 96 64)

Sent: 17 May 2016 15:21 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew Thank you for your email. I was eventually able to vote (at Trinity Hall in Golders Green) but there was an issue when I arrived and I was worried that they were going to turn me away. I had my polling card but they could not find me on the list. Rather worrying. After about ten minutes of discussion I was given my polling papers. I did feel they were about to tell me I couldn't vote. The attendants were looking very flustered and it was clear that I was not the only one they couldn't find on the list. I am glad you are investigating this matter. kind regards

Page 97 65)

Sent: 17 May 2016 15:13 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations I had filled in an application form for my son who has Downs Syndrome but who is 19 and explains a bit about politics. He did not receive a vote and no sign of one for the forthcoming referendum.

Page 98 66)

Sent: 17 May 2016 15:19 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew I arrived with my polling card on hand at about 07.10 to the polling station (hall on Alexandra Rd N 10) to find I was not on the register and it becoming evident there was a problem as no one who had arrived to vote was on the list. The officials were trying unsuccessfully to contact a senior officer. A quick glance at the list for my road (Alma Rd N10) it was evident that it contained very few names. My husband and daughter were also not on the list. Staff were helpful and offered to call me once it was resolved so I could return (I declined as I knew I could only return much later after work). I did return in the evening and voted.

Page 99 67)

Sent: 17 May 2016 15:05 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew,

Many thanks for your email.

I and my husband are both on the electoral register. We both went to vote at about 7:30am and were told that the list was incomplete by staff there and that they were waiting for the correct list to arrive. They were helpful and friendly, but were entirely unaware of the procedure for an emergency proxy vote when my husband asked. They took my number and told me they would call me when the list arrived.

At 10:30 I received a call from the polling station letting me know that the list had arrived.

I arrived after work and was able to vote in the evening.

Throughout, the volunteer staff at the polling station were helpful, friendly, and stoic in the face of something that was clearly not within their control, and had clearly not been briefed about procedure in case of emergency or something of this sort happened. I was called promptly once the list arrived, and luckily both me and my husband were able to come back later to vote.

Wishing you all the very best of luck wading through the emails about the screw up!

Page 100 68)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:58 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: RE: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Hi I received my electoral postal vote late and sent it back on 4th May so not sure if it was received on time or even logged. Also when voting for Mayor of London Mr Khan got more votes than people on the electoral register - how do you work that one out?? How come that my children in their 30's living in London did not get the opportunity to vote for Mayor, yet I am lead to believe that the electorates living outside London were allowed to vote.

No wonder the younger generation do not bother, what is the point. I am absolutely appalled at how Barnet run their voting and their council. I have been a resident of London Borough of Barnet for 43 years but you know what I am seriously considering moving to Aussie where my son is. There is a fairer system for taxing, everyone does a self assessment form. There is a more relaxed and kinder lifestyle plus the weather is beautiful. DO YOU KNOW WHY because common sense prevails and we do not have EUROPE telling them what to do. I believe they are a very prosperous county and they have a fair points system for immigrants approved by the people and for the people.

Page 101 69)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:53 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Hi Andrew,

I was the first member of the public to turn up to vote at Broadfields School at 7am. I told them my name and address and was handed the ballot papers, but a few moments later the presiding officer said to me, 'You did say S'. I said that I had said S and was told that the only person registered at my address) was my son.

I asked whether I could still vote and was told by the presiding officer that I could after which my completed papers were placed in an envelope. I asked whether they would count and was told that they would although I have no idea if that was the case. All around me people were experiencing similar problems.

Page 102 70)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:54 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Mr Dismore,

Thank you for your email re the 5th May election maladministration by Barnet council. I am writing to let you know that my daughter, [Elector B], applied for a postal vote for this election, but she did not receive it at all. When we enquired before the election what had happened, Barnet Council said they had not received her postal application, but I remember posting it myself. We were very frustrated that she was not able to vote in the mayoral election. [Elector B] is now applying to Barnet for a proxy vote for the EU Referendum election. We are hoping that we will receive it this time.

Thank you in advance for investigating this.

Page 103 71)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:40 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Congratulations so pleased to hear of your re-election and thank goodness we have someone sensible in charge. I received my postal vote and also the proxy for another member, however, how can I be sure they were both counted. My neighbour, however, did not receive his polling card but he was on the register.

Page 104 72)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:42 To: 'Andrew Dismore AM' Subject: RE: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations - postal vote forms too late

Thanks you for your email. Congrats on your re-election – we’re v pleased.

We don’t have any complaints about the recent fiasco – but we do have one prob with Barnet on this subject.

We vote by post and often have to vote from abroad (from France). Barnet never send the postal vote forms soon enough for us to have them sent to us and for us to return them.

We found out from our daughter that Haringey sent out their postal vote forms a week or more before Barnet.

Page 105 73)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:35 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: RE: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew AM,

Thanks for your email. I was quite shocked to find out that my son had been turned away from the polling station on his way to work last Thur morning. Despite the fact he had his polling card, they told him because our address did not appear on their list, he could not vote. After I was informed, I immediately contacted LBB to make inquiries. LBB admitted their mistake and told me 6 other homes in our block were accidentally omitted. I was then told the matter had been resolved because they sent a revised list and I should contact them if further problems.

This has never happened to me in all my time of voting. My son thankfully was able to return to vote after work. I will not share any further details about this, as this is a matter for my son to take up and I have forwarded your email to him already.

My concern is, what if both of us were only able to vote that same morning due to other arrangements made for the rest of that day, would we have lost our votes? What contingency plans are in place to protect voters? I certainly agree there needs to be accountability, so welcome news of future developments in this area.

Keep up the good work.

Page 106 74)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:28 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew

Thank you for your email. My wife [Elector C] of [Address C] was turned away from the polling station at Barnfield School. I believe her name is on the register and is certainly registered at the address for Council Tax purposes. She was not able to vote later, or by emergency proxy.

Page 107 75)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:28 To: Andrew Dismore Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Hey,

I applied for a postal vote but didn't receive it. I also had lots of issues with signing up.

1. In January 2014 I moved house, and re-registered at the new house in time for the 2015 general elections. That all went find. 2. In 2016 we're preparing to move house, so I re-registered back at my dad's house - giving them my old address so they could remove me. 3. I received a polling card to _both_ addresses, so I called them up to sort it out. After some useless backward and forward with them removing me from the wrong address they said re-register. There was lots of backward and forward here so I don't recall all the specifics (but have some related emails which might clarify) 4. I re-registered at Dad's address, giving the old address as a "previous" address and requested a postal vote. 5. I then got a letter saying I had been removed from Dad's address (whether it was sent before, during or after any of the previous calls/emails I have no idea). 6. I re-registered just to be sure I was on the register (since there's no easy way to find out, and the system seems to work by accepting registrations and updating or adding as necessary).

In the end, my postal vote then never arrived. Which I would have been more upset about had Khan not won :)

Page 108 76)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:27 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew Dismore Thank you for pursuing this. Despite being on the register, we did not get polling cards delivered. This affected our daughter who tried, unsuccessfully, to vote on the way to work in the morning. Fortunately, we live on the same road as our polling station so she was able to vote in the evening on her way home. My husband and I voted later so were not disadvantaged by our lack of polling cards.

Page 109 77)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:21 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet Elections

Regarding the election mess;

I applied for a postal vote for myself and my wife. Notification came in the post. We filled in the ballot papers and posted them.

We then received, much later, an identical set of ballot papers. I telephoned the help-line, worried that our votes had not been registered. I was told that according to the list we had been registered TWICE. I was then asked to email the election office asking them to remove one of the entries. I did not receive a reply.

I am not convinced our postal vote actually made it - I have no way of knowing. I take voting very seriously and was pleased to see the person running the Barnet Poll had resigned. It's a shame [Cllr G] didn't go too.

What a farce.

Page 110 78)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:17 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Good Afternoon Mr Dismore

Thanks for your latest email.

In fact on 1st of May I rec'd an email first thing in the morning, as probably did all those on the electorial register - stating that unless we brought with the poling card we would not be able to vote as there were problens at the voting station.

Since I never rec'd a polling card, I was strongly tempted not to vote at all. Evenutaully though I did go along later in the morning just hoping it would be acceptable.

I was told that things were now rectified and they had my name on the list before them, but previously everyone without their card had been turned away.

Several of my acquaintances in the area did not attempt to vote. Thanks for telling me that a number of other people did not get a polling card - at my age any statement no matter how true, if not acceptable to the authorities - is put down to some kind of dementia. Age discrimination is rife in this country.

Because of this debacle, and the fact that so far to date, I have not yet rec'd a polling card for the Euro Referendadum, I contacted Barnet Council to ask if there were more problems. I am pleased to tell you that I was told the cards were being sent out tomorrow, and that all issues have been settled in this area.

Thanks for your continuing support of the community.

Page 111 79)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:10 To: 'Andrew Dismore AM' Cc: Subject: RE: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew

Thank you for your email. I support the action you are taking.

I was not myself affected on polling day, but my wife found out a few days before that for some reason her name had been removed from the register and she would not be able to vote. I don’t know whether this is a separate, isolated incident, or part and parcel of the general foul up on the day.

I am therefore copying your email and this reply to my wife. I know she will not mind if you contact her yourself directly on this issue, as she was very disappointed, not only at having been removed from the register, but also at Barnet’s inability to put matters right in time for her to vote.

Page 112 80)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:11 To: Andrew Dismore Subject: RE: We are doing well

Thanks sir for your email but for your information my son [Elector G] on the 5/5 election they told him to go to the poling stqtionto vote but when he went there he couldn't find his name in the list and list we feel sorry how this thing happon and we lost a labour vote We need to know how this mistake happon so it desnt happon again

Page 113 81)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:11 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: RE: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations dearsir i am disable and i apply fpor postal ballet but i get card to go to polling station

Page 114 82)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:11 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Hi Andrew

Both myself and my wife registered but did not receive polling cards for the St Agnes Centre, Childs Hill/Cricklewood. I phoned on the day to see if we were able to vote, which we were, after hearing of the administration inefficiency in the news.

Page 115 83)

Sent: 17 May 2016 17:05 To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew,

I tried to vote in East Finchley at 7am, and they could not find my name. I had my voting card, but that was not sufficient evidence for them.

I was not able to vote later on that day, as I was going to the theatre straight from work.

Very annoying.

I was going to vote for you too.

Best wishes,

Page 116 84)

Sent: 18 May 2016 09:53 To: andrew dismore Subject: Fwd: People turned away in the morning who went to vote again later

Dear Andrew

I expect you saw the email I sent to the party about the fiasco on polling day - in terms of data protection I have not told these people I am sharing this information but as they told me or [Person D] openly as we phone from the party office.

So glad you had such a great majority - we were discussing the figures at our branch meeting yesterday and they do reflect so well on your work for Hendon people these last years.

Page 117 85)

Sent: 17 May 2016 23:49 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew,

I was turned away at the polling station at Deansbrook School as I did not bring my electoral slip with me, having come straight from work and knowing that the document was not required anyway. However as my name was not listed at the polling station I had to go home and get the paperwork and return. There were also large queues at the polling station as the clerks had to manually write down all voters details when they registered.

Page 118 86)

Sent: 17 May 2016 20:30 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Good Evening Andrew,

My poll station is the Brunswick park one. The morning of the recent voting, I visited on my way to work at 7:30, to place my vote,I had with me my polling card. I was told that I wasn't on the list,but they let me vote, I went to place my ballot papers in the box, and was told no, I could not post my vote, they insisted I gave my ballot papers and they would keep them I was not offered an envelope, so I felt my vote was not private for me. I don't know even know if my vote was included. I have been a resident of barnet all my life and never have come across such a situation such as this.

Page 119 87)

Sent: 17 May 2016 23:43 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

My son Who has moved out from. barnet borough and i have deleted his name and filled out the form online. He still received a voting card though he's registered in a different borough now.

Page 120 88)

Sent: 17 May 2016 20:06 To: 'Andrew Dismore AM' Subject: RE: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew,

My wife and I applied for postal votes for the 5th May election, and also for the election for the referendum to be held 23rd June. We still have not received any acknowledgement or reply at all. We would be most grateful if you could look into this matter urgently as we want to be able to vote on 23rd and will be on holiday.

Many thanks

Page 121 89)

Sent: 17 May 2016 19:24 To: [email protected] Cc: Dad Subject: Elections in Barnet

Dear Mr Dismore,

I was unable to vote at the Strawberry Vale polling station. I arrived at 7:55am to be told by the women organising the ballot that: -I wasn't on the list -they'd had a phonecall in the past 20 mins to say that nobody was allowed to vote without their polling card.

Previously, I have voted at this polling station on several occasions. I have never needed my polling card because I am on the electoral register.

I was on my way to work and had no time to go home to look for my polling card. Work required me to be out late that evening so I could not vote before the polling station closed.

Thanks for doing something about it.

If you need any more information please don't hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Page 122 90) Sent: 17 May 2016 18:25 To: [email protected] Subject: Fw: 49 Warrens Shawe Lane, Edgware, HA8 8FX

Dear Andrew Dismore

This email from me to Barnet's Electoral Registration Office summarises yet another cock-up they made and tried to wriggle out of. If the Electoral Commission are interested I can pass on all the email correspondence. They did eventually register my next door neighbour and sent her TWO polling cards - wasn't that kind of them?

Page 123 91)

Sent: 17 May 2016 19:14 To: Andrew Dismore AM Cc: Stuart Edge Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew,

In response to your email, both my husband and I had registered to vote in time but neither of us received a voting card. We did however manager to vote without having a voting card when we went in person to our local polling station at St Peter Le Peor, N10.

I did witness a lady being turned away at the polling station who claimed to have registered but also not received a polling card. Luckily for us, we were able to vote however we almost did not attempt to try as we had thought it was not possible without a polling card.

I hope your efforts to delve into the issues behind such a voting farce help to ensure that it does not happen again in the future. Good luck with collating the necessary evidence to submit for further urgent investigation.

Page 124 92)

Sent: 17 May 2016 18:34 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Election mismanagement

Hi Andrew, In answer to your request, here's the email I sent you on 5th May: Just popped over to Burnt Oak polling station. I was the first one there. But theycouldn't find my address. The officer phoned her boss. In the meantime five other people turned up to vote they couldn't find their addresses either! The officer's boss told her this was happening all over Barnet. We were told to come back later.

Page 125 93)

Sent: 17 May 2016 18:23 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

I have already replied to a similar enquiry.

My postal vote did not include the sheet for GLA candidates.

Page 126 94)

Sent: 17 May 2016 18:04 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew, I went to my poling Station to vote at about 8.40 am and was told I was not at that time on the register. But that a may well be able to vote later in the day. I phoned several different council Telephone. No's. They gave plenty of option buttons to press but each time I pressed any option the phone cut off.. I was furious as I promised to visit my granddaughter at Nottingham University and meet her for Lunch. Later,I phoned the Police and told them in my opinion what had happened was unlawful but they appeared to be unconvinced. I said I would like to report it as a crime. They subsequently gave a reference number and a telephone Number to phone the Council direct. The operator at the council said if I went to my poling station I would now be able to vote. Which I did . However it was lucky for me that my granddaughter was so understanding. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards,

Page 127 95)

Sent: 17 May 2016 17:47 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

The recent Election was the first one since becoming eligible to vote, in 1955, for which I did not receive a Poll Card. When I advised the Poll Clerks at the library of this, they just shrugged and said this happened to many at every election.

Page 128 96)

Sent: 18 May 2016 08:55 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew,

I had no trouble voting (with my poll card), but my husband did not manage to vote:

He arrived at the polling station (St Peter Le Poer Church Hall, Albion Avenue) shortly past 7am, but it was not open yet. It was supposed to be open from 7am. Then there was a long queue. People without cards had to have their identity checked via phone-calls. As my husband did not have his poll card on him and it was all taking way too long, he left.

Page 129 97)

Sent: 17 May 2016 17:24 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Could you please add colour of voting papers to the list of problems. I mistook the pink for the orange. Instead of giving me a new ballot paper the woman rubbed out my cross(the outline could still be seen) and told me to re-use the same paper. Not sure that was correct procedure so no idea if my vote counted or was considered spoilt. Sadly we are all human so don't be too hard on any one person. The cEO had to take the rap but it was probably someone lower down the chain of command and their supervisor who were responsible. A CEO cannot possibly know what every employed person is doing every minute of every day. He will have been at his allocated post early in the morning and probably had 4 hours sleep if he was lucky before going back on Friday. You will know from your own position that you are only a step away from someone else's mistake destroying your job! Not an easy place for any of you to be in.

Page 130 98)

Sent: 17 May 2016 14:14 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Hello Andrew,

I went to the polling station in Edgware (the Harvester) early in the morning of the voting day, and at 7:15 (they had been open for 15 minutes) the 'staff' in the polling station couldn't work out how to assemble the box where the votes go. Several people left the queue, including me. I returned to vote in the evening.

During the afternoon I saw the other issues about Barnet's votes - it makes us look more like a developing country!

Page 131 99)

Date: 23 May 2016 12:44:33 BST To: [Cllr C] Subject: May 5 elections

Hi [Person E] You may remember me as your volunteer driver on the morning of May 5. I have just sent the following letter to [Person F], who is investigating the council’s cock-ups on that day. I am asserting that the problems weren’t limited to the wrong election lists being sent out, but based on my son’s experience, the whole electoral office was mismanaged (and probably understaffed). You may want to ask a question or otherwise pursue it. I think Mark Heath’s brief is probably not wide enough. Warm regards

Page 132 100)

Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:21:41 +0000 (UTC) To: Andrew Dismore AM ReplyTo: Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Mr Dismore

Thank you for taking up this issue of appalling incompetence by Barnet council. I must add that I am not surprised that this has happened as a result of austerity cuts, lack of staff training, loss of senior staff and privatisation of services.

I am a busy senior health professional. On election day I went to the wrong polling station at about 07.40 (my fault - as I had mislaid my polling card after reading that it was not necessary to bring it along). The usual voting venue for the past 30 years has been the Scout Hall near West Finchley tube and it took me about 20 minutes to discover that it had been moved to Essex Park; passersby seemed uninterested and unaware that the mayoral election was even taking place and I must have stopped about 6-8 people to ask where the polling station was. I arrived at the polling station at about 08.00. I gave my name postcode and address and was told that I was not on the voting roll. The reaction among the officers varied; one said that I should return later while the other ofered to phone the borough to obtain my voting number. I was on call at work on that day and could not be sure that I would be able to return to the polling station before 10 p.m.

I was therefore angry and insistent that I would not leave the station until they obtained my voriting number. As you mentioned in your speech the phones were jammed so I waited about 15 minutes before they did obtain my number and permitted me to vote. Needless to say I arrived late at work. I am not sure that everyone in my situation would have had the same tenacity as I so it is not possible ot guess hw many left the stations wthout voting.

On my way to work I phoned BBC (London) who had already been inundated with calls from Barnet and were aware of the fiasco.

I did wonder if this was cock-up or conspiracy but you seem to indicate the former as it has happened previously. We have retained our polling cards for the referendum on 23 June.

Thank you again.

Page 133 101)

Sent: 19 May 2016 14:13 To: Andrew Dismore AM Cc: Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew. Thank you for the update

I thought you would 'like' to know of another issue with L B Barnet Election Team.

Today my wife and myself received our polling cards for the referendum election. Alarm bells rang. Why? As we are away for the actually election, we applied for a postal vote and this was done on May 4th by post. On checking with the elections team they said it had not been received...... ??????

Interestingly, this would all have been straightforward had I been told I could copy, scan and email to them but I was not told this the first time I called to ask about a postal vote. Today, I got through straight away; NOTE: there is a help line to call and the number is on the front of the polling card. This is completely different from the first time I called them. I spent around 30 minutes calling them only to get into a loop system. I rang the switchboard and asked for the operator to put me through to a real live person; which they did.

Today I downloaded the form, completed it, scanned it and sent it through via email asking for confirmation of receipt. To repeat I was not aware the forms could be emailed as I was not told the about this the first time I rang.

My main issue is the wasted time; to get to speak to someone and the time it takes to get ANYTHING sensible out of Barnet Council only to have to call them again as the information given was not full and complete.

Please feel free to add this to your list of growing stories.

Hopefully we get our postal vote however I do not have a high confidence factor behind this statement.

Page 134 102)

Sent: 19 May 2016 19:10 To: [email protected] Subject: We will be in the papers again !!!

Dear Andrew

May I first congratulate you in your appointment.

Im sure you are aware that we will have issues again in the June elections with the same people that were left off the register not being on them again.

I was told to email you. I realised this today when 3 out of 5 of us got our poll cards in the post.

The same amount came last month. We are two short!

I don't feel that anything has been done to correct last months error and so many people will be disappointed again and it's a waste and a shame. We have not been contacted or advised what to do.

I just heard an ad on to saying make sure you've registered - well how is one supposed to know they are not on the register. We didn't realise what went wrong when half the family didn't get cards we thought they were lost in the post! Had I not phoned in to investigate we would have been non the wiser and it would have been too late.

I phoned the help line number and was told that the system changed in 2014 and everyone had to re-register. All 5 of us did but we only got 3 cards!

We only found out there was an error 2 years later!

I called up the helpline and they confirmed only 3 on there but can see 5 people live at that address. They were all sent together - so where have the other 2 gone?

If i hadn't been pro-active in sorting this out 2 votes would have been lost!

Something urgently must be done to contact and advise all those not on the lists last month to urgently register again or as the names were collated they should be added manually ( they may be upset and not bother as it's inconvenient)

Time is running out.

Hope everyone is prepared and no one is turned away!

Page 135 103)

Sent: 19 May 2016 22:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Concern about vote registration Dear Andrew Dismore, Congratulations on your reelection. I hope you will be able to continue to speak for all citizens of Barnet in the London Assembly. Please find below my letter of concern to the Electoral Services in Barnet. My concern is slightly different from that of the people featured in the Hendon and Finchley last week. I tried to register by mail - and tried quite persistently, because I think no voter should be excluded because he or she does not have access to internet. As you can see, I was unable to register by mail in time for the elections of 5 May. As you have spoken out to this issue, I thought this information is of use to you.

Datum: 19 mei 2016 22:14:53 GMT+1 Aan: Onderwerp: Concern about vote registration

Dear Madam, Sir, I am writing with a concern about voter registration in Barnet. I have found it practically impossible to register by mail in time for the 5 May election. This is deeply troubling for it could mean that people without easy access to internet are less likely to be able to register and thus to vote. When the way to register voting changed, I applied immediately by mail. Yet, in May 2015 I received a letter telling me I needed to register to vote. I was given five days to reply to the letter. As I had been away the five days had already passed and I decided to wait for the reminder. This never came. Instead, I received a letter near the end of December (d.d. 21 December 2015), that per 1 December I was no longer registered to vote. I was told that they has tried on multiple occasions to contact me, yet apart from the letter sent to me in May I had not received any communication from the Electoral Services. In January I called the council to ask for an application form. I was told it would be sent to me within three weeks. It never arrived. In February I called again and was promised another form. None arrived. Early March I called again and was promised another form and none arrived. Near the end of March I decided to register by internet so as not to loose my vote. I was registered - though initially all correspondence was sent to the basement flat, whereas I live in the maisonette as is clear from the council tax bills which are registered in my name. I was able to correct this and the voting card was delivered to the correct address, though the information on the candidates for mayor was not. Most importantly, I was able to vote in the election on 5 May. The day before I received e-mail confirmation that my internet application had been successful, I finally received a form to register. I completed this and returned it immediately. Last week I received confirmation that my registration was successful and that per 1 June I was added to the register. This letter was sent to the correct address - not the basement flat - and I wonder whether I am now registered twice. The local and national papers have reported on the failure of Barnet to register a significant number of voters. My story suggests that there may be serious issues with registration by post. I urge you to look into this issue as the right to vote is an important one for which people have fought a difficult battle. I hope you can reassure me that the Electoral Services in Barnet take this issue seriously and all steps are taken to address this issue.

I look forward to your reply.

Page 136 104)

Sent: 22 May 2016 22:38 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Mr Dismore,

Thank you for your email. I am away on holiday and not in a position to provide you with all pertinent details, however I wish to register a complaint that I have not received my postal vote for the last two elections. I have registered online for postal voting and called Barnet in this regard to no avail. Fortunately on these last two occasions, I was well and able to go to a polling station but this is not always possible due to chronic illness. I have lost confidence in the electoral system in Barnet where I have lived for decades. I do hope you persist in sorting out this problem. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf

Page 137 105)

Sent: 23 May 2016 13:16 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

My husband arrived at the polling station on Hoop Lane just after 7.00am. He reported that he couldn't wait while the chaos at the station was resolved as he needed to get to work. He voted just before 10pm by which time matters had been resolved.

Page 138 106)

Sent: 18 May 2016 21:41 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Mr Dismore,

For the first time, I had applied for a proxy vote by the deadline but the proxy did not arrive in time, nor since actually. I had to return home from a work trip away for just one night so that I could vote.

Thank you for looking into this.

Page 139 107)

Sent: 19 May 2016 00:35 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Andrew,

I applied for a postal vote back in December 2015 as a student studying at Southampton University. I had recently moved into a new address in September 2015 and assumed that the postal vote would be sent there. However when I received my polling card it had my former Southampton address on it. I called up Barnet's Electoral Registration Office twice, to ask if they could change the address my postal vote would be sent to to no avail. Both people I spoke to seemed confused as to which election I even wanted the postal vote for, thinking I wanted a postal vote for the upcoming referendum. Eventually I was told if I wanted to change the address I would have to submit a new postal vote application under the new address which I did. However my postal vote never arrived at my new address. Having spent a few days at home in London before the May 5th election I turned up to my polling station to be told I couldn't vote as I was registered for a postal vote which I hadn't received. I therefore took a train back to Southampton, asked the residents of my former address if they had received my postal vote which they had. I then filled out my postal vote and took a train back to London in order to hand in my postal vote in person at my polling station to ensure it was received before 10pm. This was a significant expense of time and money which would have been entirely unnecessary if I could have changed the address my postal vote was sent to, and received it with plenty of time to post it, rather than having to pick it up from an address I no longer live at, a few hours before the end of voting time.

I hope this account is useful to you and wish you the best of luck with your inquiry.

Page 140 108)

Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 14:35:08 To: 'Andrew Dismore' Subject: RE: Re mayor QT

Andrew

Many thanks for meeting with me today. It was most interesting discussion.

Regarding the recent elections in Barnet...

I attempted to vote at Chipping Barnet library at 7am on the morning of the election. I was told I could not as I did not have my polling card and the polling station did not have the correct electoral register. I would have to return later to vote. Luckily I was able to return to vote later.

A friend of mine was not able to vote due to not receiving a postal vote in time, despite applying within the deadline.

Page 141 109)

Sent: 16 April 2016 13:01 To: [email protected] Subject: My vote.

Dear Mr Dismore. I called about a postal vote over 2 weeks ago to Barnet, and was told that i would receive a form to fill in and to send it back, i would then receive another for my vote. I have heard nothing from them. Called yesterday and was told i was down to vote at the polling station which i am unable to do, i impressed this on the woman i spoke to, unfortunately i did not take her name. Yesterday i was advised to go to "about my vote.com" where i could fill in a form online, well i tried and could not find anything or where to send it even if i found the thing which i did not. I am so very annoyed that i will be losing my vote on May 5th, specially as i see that Britain First, BNP and the likes of George Galloway standing as candidates. Whom i dislike so very much along with UKIP. I am writing to you as in the past i know you have been a brilliant politician and human being, specially when it comes to the Jewish people and Israel. One of those vile beings could get the post as Mayor with one vote and sadly that would be my lost one.

Page 142 110)

Sent: 29 May 2016 19:56 To: [email protected] Subject: Barnet voting problems

Dear Mr Dismore,

Like many other irate voters in Barnet I am very disappointed by not being able to vote in the 5 May elections.

Knowing I would be away from London on the 5th May I sent in a request form to the Council, downloaded from their site, requesting a postal vote. I sent it in late March and understood my postal vote would be sent to me around the third week of April. I received my poll card to vote in March.

I telephoned the council electoral office in the third week of April to ask when my postal vote would be sent. I was shocked to hear that no application had been received. They said it was too late to request a postal vote as it was after the 18 April deadline. They said there was no way I could vote in the election except by proxy or my presence at the voting station. I did not choose to elect a proxy.

Either the Postal Service or Barnet Council are at fault in denying me this opportunity to vote. Knowing now that the Council messed up with electoral lists at polling stations that day I can only assume they also messed up with my application for a postal vote.

It is unclear why a postal vote would be sent in the 3rd week of April when the cut-off date is 18 April leaving no room to chase it up.

I wrote to Barnet Council on 5 May and am awaiting a reply. I want to register this complaint to the highest official at Barnet/London Assembly and I would like an explanation of why I could not vote even after they admitted not receiving my postal application.

I know you are also concerned about this and I wonder if any other Barnet residents applying for a postal vote may have contacted you to complain if they did not receive one.

I have not heard any further from Barnet Council to my email of 5 May except their automated acknowledgement of receipt on that same day.

Page 143 111)

Sent: 21 May 2016 18:49 To: Andrew Dismore AM Subject: Re: Barnet election maladministration; evidence needed by investigations

Dear Mr Dismore

Thank you for your email and for standing up for the people of Barnet. In actual fact, I believe you are standing up for a principle, which would help to prevent this kind of practice from being allowed to impact, other elections nationally! This sort of mishandling of individuals democratic rights should be confronted sooner than later. Eradicating the root cause of a malfunctioning society is crucial for the healthy existence of our democracy.

My experience of being turned away from an election station, occurred two years ago, when my daughter and I were informed that our names had not been registered! Having made every effort to be registered early, my daughter was incensed when told she could not vote. We insisted that we wanted to speak to a manager and got an apology, but we left bitterly disappointed. There was no explanation why this had occurred, but were promised that our names would be registered for next time!

I joined one of your campaign groups last year, unfortunately I was not able to speak to you despite all my efforts. I am not sure of the protocol which I need to follow in order to request for an appointment, to your surgery. I would be grateful for your advice.

Page 144 Postal Polling Proxy Registrati Wrong Votes Card vote Person on issue List issue issue issue Notes 1 yes unable to register properly 2 yes lack of response to registration efforts 3 yes ERO claimed he was moving 4 yes Not registered 5 yes Not registered 6 yes Not registered 7 yes Reg form sent to wrong address, so not registered to vote 8 yes ERO put them in wrong ward 9 yes Put whole road in wrong Polling district son not registered, proxy not possible on phone, online only 10 yes yes application breaks equalities act 11 yes did not receive PV Page 145 Page 12 yes yes Son did not receive PV, father not on original list 13 yes yes PV application not processed, turned away from polling stn. 14 yes PV not received in time 15 those bringing polling cards placed at unfair advantage 16 yes Didn’t receive polling card 17 yes wrong polling station on polling card 18 yes polling card did not explain movement of polling station 19 yes yes Proxy vote not registered on the day in time 20 yes had polling cards, still turned away 21 yes wrong list early on 22 yes wrong list early on 23 yes had polling cards, still turned away 24 yes had polling cards, still turned away 25 yes had polling cards, still turned away 26 yes wrong list early on 27 yes not on list the whole day 28 yes wrong list early on 29 yes yes family turned away despite polling cards, no poll card for him 30 yes wrong list early on 31 yes wrong list early on 32 yes wrong list early on 33 yes had polling cards, still turned away 34 yes had polling cards, still turned away 35 yes wrong list early on 36 yes wrong list early on 37 yes wrong list early on 38 yes had polling cards, still turned away 39 yes wrong list early on 40 yes had polling cards, still turned away 41 yes had polling cards, still turned away 42 yes wrong list early on 43 yes had polling cards, still turned away

Page 146 Page 44 yes had polling cards, still turned away 45 yes had polling cards, still turned away 46 yes wrong list early on 47 yes wrong list early on 48 yes wrong list early on 49 yes wrong list early on 50 yes wrong list early on 51 yes wrong list early on 52 yes wrong list early on 53 yes had polling cards, still turned away 54 yes had polling cards, still turned away 55 yes wrong list early on 56 yes wrong list early on, ballot box broken 57 yes wrong list early on 58 yes partner not sent postal vote sister's proxy postal not sent, mother denied vote due to 59 yes yes yes yes yes registration error 60 yes yes Husband not on proxy list, neigbour not on list 61 yes yes did not receive poll card, told not on early list 62 yes not on original list 63 yes PV did not arrive till day before election 64 yes wrong list early on 65 yes son not registers 66 yes not on original list 67 yes not on original list 68 yes PV arrived day before election 69 yes wrong list early on 70 yes PV not received 71 yes did not receive poll card 72 yes PV not sent in time 73 yes wrong list early on 74 yes wrong list early on 75 yes yes problems registering, PV didn’t come 76 yes did not receive poll card Page 147 Page 77 yes yes registered twice and received 2 PVs 78 yes yes did note receive polling card, wrong early list 79 yes wife de-registered inexplicably 80 yes son not on list 81 yes application for PV not processed 82 yes did not receive polling card 83 yes wrong list early on 84 yes wrong list early on 85 yes wrong list early on 86 yes wrong list early on, temporary ballot mishandled 87 yes de-registered son, who still received polling card 88 yes PV application not processed 89 yes wrong list early on 90 yes neighbour not registerd, then registered twice 91 yes did not receive polling card 92 yes wrong list early on 93 yes PV did not include GLA ballot 94 yes wrong list early on 95 yes did not receive poll card 96 yes husband not on early list, poll station not open at 7. 97 colours of ballot papers not clear, made mistake, vote rubbed out Polling clerks did not know how to assemble ballot box, people 98 unable to vote till 7:15 99 yes yes Son's PV application mismanaged 100 yes wrong list early on 101 yes not properly registered for PV 102 yes children not registered properly 103 yes problems registering 104 yes unable to register for PV twice 105 yes wrong list early on 106 yes Proxy vote application never processed 107 yes PV sent to old address

Page 148 Page 108 yes wrong list early on 109 yes failed to register her for PV twice 110 yes PV application not processed 111 yes was not registered properly at previous election

20 64 20 12 6 Appendix 3

Live Event Count Issue

GLA 2016

Document Version 1.0

Page 149 Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

Table of Contents

1 Introduction and High Level Summary ...... 3 2 Details of the Issue ...... 4 3 Timeline of Technical Activities ...... 6 4 Investigation on Count Day and Remedial Action Taken ...... 8 4.1 SQL and Manual Report Creation Process ...... 8 4.1.1 Data Structures and SQL ...... 8 4.2 Manually Created Result Example ...... 16 5 Investigation following Count Day ...... 17 5.1 Data Analysis ...... 17 5.2 System Diagnosis and Root Cause Analysis ...... 17 5.2.1 Stored Procedure : Dashboard_GetBallots ...... 18 5.2.2 Investigation into why data order is modified ...... 18 5.3 Previous Testing Coverage and comparison ...... 20 5.4 Analysis of Recent System Changes ...... 20 Document Change Summary………………………………………………………….173

Page 2 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may not be copied, reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, Pagewithout prior150 permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

1 Introduction and High Level Summary

This document describes the issue that occurred on the day of the GLA 2016 count which delayed the announcement of the results of the Mayor contest.

It also provides details of the remedial action taken on the night of the count, the follow-up investigations after the count, and the findings of the investigation.

The summary of the issue is that minor discrepancies were identified in the first set of “Constituency Level Mayor Contest – Final” reports. Manual extraction of data and re-creation of reports allowed the accurate count data to be announced on the night.

Analysis of previous test data shows that the issue was not present in UAT reports nor any of the Kit Readiness reports.

Analysis of system changes (application code, database schema [including indices, views, and stored procedures], server patch levels, etc.) show no modifications since UAT.

The root cause of the issue has been established to be the incorrect construction of the vote matrix due to data extracted from the database being in an unexpected order.

The reason has been identified as a pre-existing code defect which was also present in 2012, which combined with a subsequent change to the database server configuration in 2015 (specifically SQL Server Max Degree Of Parallelism) resulted in the ordering of the data during the calculation of the mayoral figures to be incorrect in 2016 compared with 2012. The issue was not evident in the 2012 election because this combination of conditions was not present. The underlying code in this area has not changed since 2012. The server settings used in 2015 & 2016 followed industry best practice guidelines. No such guideline existed in 2012.

Analysis of previous test data shows that the issue did not occur in UAT or Kit Readiness. The reason for this is that there is a Cost Threshold parameter which triggers the use of parallelism in SQL Server. The smaller datasets in UAT and Kit Readiness required a lower calculated execution cost which fell below the cost threshold required to invoke parallelism and without this being executed the data was returned in the expected order.

Page 3 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 151 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

2 Details of the Issue

Discrepancies were found in the Final Results report for the Constituency level London Mayor contest.

The first discrepancy found was that the Total Number Of Ballot Papers Counted did not add up to the Total Number Of Good Votes plus the Total Number Of Ballots Rejected.

The second discrepancy found was that the numbers of First Preference and Second Preference votes for candidates differed each time the Final Results report was run.

It was found that the Total Number Of Ballot Papers Counted and the Total Number Of Ballots Rejected figures were constant, but the Total Number Of Good First and Second Preference Votes was variable.

The following abbreviated screenshots illustrate the issue.

Bexley and Bromley Final Report taken at 14:53:51

In the example above, the number of good votes for 1st preference (189,027) when added to the number of ballots rejected (2,890) give a total of 191,917 which is again not equal to 191,514.

Page 4 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 152 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

Bexley and Bromley Final Report taken at 15:13:00

In the example above, the number of good votes for 1st preference (189,066) when added to the number of ballots rejected (2890) give a total of 191,956 which is not equal to 191,514.

In both examples of the report, 1. The Total Number of Ballot Papers Counted is constant at 191,514 2. The Total Number Of Ballots Rejected on 1st preference is constant at 2890 3. Not shown, but the Total Number Of Ballots Rejected on 2nd preference is constant at 25,106 4. The number of good plus number rejected in both 1st and 2nd preference does not match the total number of ballots.

Page 5 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 153 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

3 Timeline of Technical Activities

The following is a description of the events that occurred from identification of the issue to publication of results to GLA. The times provided are in some cases estimates.

Time Description 16:00 The second set of constituency mayor results from Lambeth and Southwark triggered the start of the investigation 16:00 – 18:45 Consulted with ERS on report discrepancy. Checked data for Bexley and Bromley as well. Confirmed that the sum of the 1st preference votes + bad 1st preference votes was not equal to total number of ballots.

Investigation into possible causes of data changing. Initial suspicion on the error at this stage was either: - a central consolidation error, - a local count-site consolidation error - an error in the dataset sent to central site Connected to Bexley and Bromley database and extracted the “frozen” vote matrix from there. Transposed all 1st preference votes onto paper and totalled them. Concluded that the votes sent to central site (which should have matched the votes in the “frozen” vote matrix and the votes on the Final Bexley and Bromley report) did not and were in fact short by the exact difference on the central report Additional information was received regarding suspected errors output to the log files – information was that totals were different each time the report was run, it was not clear at this stage exactly how these totals were derived Additional information was received stating that provisional reports had been run 3 times and each time they had different data. It was confirmed that no processing was in progress at the count site, i.e. that the data should now be static. Investigation into why the data is changing, suggested possibilities at this time included; MSMQ backlog, incomplete blocked transactions, being hacked. Database trace applied to identify any instances of data updates – this confirmed that no data was being updated. Inspected MSMQ – nothing on the queues Concluded that it must be a consolidation issue. Started code inspection in this area targeting code suggested by log file output. This area of the code was not familiar to the technical team and there was no immediately obvious cause. 18:50 A decision was made following the 18:50 executive meeting with GLA to manually query the database to produce the data required. 18:50 to 20:25 Generation of SQL to produce manual data to identify total votes per constituency, per candidate, and by preference (1st or 2nd). Checking of data produced. This was done by sanity checking against the SQL in the core product used to generate the vote matrix. 20:25 – 20:35 1st preference data produced from SQL 20:41 – 20:45 2nd preference data produced from SQL

Page 6 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 154 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

20:40 – 21:25 Generation of SQL to produce manual data for 2nd preference data for Goldsmith and Khan per constituency, per candidate. 21:29 – 21:34 2nd preference data for Goldsmith and Khan produced from SQL 21:40 – 22:00 Generation of SQL to produce manual data for 1st preference = 2nd preference data 22:16 - 22:42 Data for counts of votes where 1st preference = 2nd preference produced from SQL

Page 7 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 155 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

4 Investigation on Count Day and Remedial Action Taken

The technical team were informed of the issue and immediately started to investigate for possible causes. This took on 2 streams of activity; one to trace back the code for the generation of the final report and one to manually query the database to check the numbers.

It was discovered that 1. the underlying data stored in the database was correct. This was confirmed by the comparison of the underlying data extracted using independent SQL queries with the data extracted by the stored procedure, as explained below. 2. there was a problem in the way in which the data for the 1st and 2nd preference votes for candidates was being extracted and aggregated by the code module. The exact nature and root cause of this problem was not identified on the night

4.1 SQL and Manual Report Creation Process

SQL was generated to extract data for the 1st and 2nd preference votes for candidates from the raw table data. This SQL was created independently of the e- Counting system, reviewed by peers, the output was checked against raw data extracted from the live stored procedure (i.e. prior to aggregation via code), then separately checked by ERS. The results were accurate.

The SQL generated was stand-alone and did not change the e-Counting system or the data within it in any way.

The reports were constructed manually using Excel, data cross-checked, converted to PDF, and delivered to GLA.

4.1.1 Data Structures and SQL

The core data for determining the results is contained in 4 tables; Contest, Ballot, Vote, and Candidate. The following diagram depicts the relationships between Contest, Ballot, and Vote. The candidate is referenced via ContestID and CandidateNumber.

Page 8 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 156 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

The example outputs shown in this document are for Bexley and Bromley.

Although the values for Total Number of Ballot Papers Counted was consistent across the reports, we cross-checked this using the following SQL:

The output from this is as follows for Bexley and Bromley:

The SQL to generate the 1st Preference votes per candidate is as follows:

The output from this query inserted into Excel and then summed shows the values:

Page 9 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 157 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

The total values for each of these match the total 1st preference votes presented in the corresponding “Constituency Level Mayor Contest – Final” reports generated from the e-Counting system.

The individual candidate values did not match; the ones presented in the system- generated reports were variable. At this point we cross-checked the figures from our independently generated SQL with a very slightly modified version of the stored procedure Dashboard_GetBallots SQL:

This SQL produced the following output from the Results and Messages tabs; the results showing that the number of records for 1st preference is 188,624 which matches the total number from our independent SQL output:

Page 10 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 158 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

This provided confidence that the underlying data from the stored procedure was accurate. We then extracted the dataset into Excel, removed the BallotId column, leaving the CandidateNumber and Choice (=1) entries. This was then pivoted by CandidateNumber to sum the Choice values and this presented the data shown below:

This matches exactly the data we produced independently for 1st choice preferences.

At this stage we could potentially have made the correlation between the sort order being incorrect, but everyone was so intensely involved in generating the data, checking for the root cause had been set aside.

The SQL to generate the 2nd Preference votes per candidate is as follows:

Page 11 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 159 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

The output from this query inserted into Excel and then summed shows the values:

We repeated the process of checking these against the slightly modified stored procedure SQL for 2nd preference votes, checking the output, exporting to Excel and pivoting by candidate number:

Page 12 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 160 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

This matches exactly the data we produced independently for 2nd choice preferences.

The SQL to generate the raw data for the matrix of count of 2nd preference votes per candidate based on 1st preference candidate vote is as follows:

Page 13 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 161 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

An extract from the output from this SQL is as follows:

This SQL was executed for each constituency and the data copied into a text file and delivered to ERS who then checked the data for consistency.

This output was also pasted into an Excel spreadsheet and then totals were calculated per row. This produced an output as seen from the extract below.

Page 14 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 162 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

The highlighted cells above show the count of 2nd preference votes for candidate 1 (Sian Rebecca BERRY) which totals to 28960.

The columns were summed to provide a count of the total number of good 2nd preference votes for the constituency:

The overall number of 2nd preference votes for Bexley and Bromley is 163518. It is also noted that the grand total of 2nd preference votes across all constituencies is 2212718.

Page 15 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 163 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

4.2 Manually Created Result Example

The abbreviated screenshot below shows the correct data extracted.

Page 16 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 164 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

5 Investigation following Count Day

5.1 Data Analysis

Further analysis of the data established that for each candidate the sum of the votes for 1st and 2nd preference was always constant: Brent & Harrow Final Report taken at 16:56:22

Brent & Harrow Final Report taken at 17:11:44

It can be seen that for the first candidate the total votes for 1st + 2nd preference always add up to 31765. Similarly for the second candidate the total is always 3321.

5.2 System Diagnosis and Root Cause Analysis

Backups of the databases were restored to test systems and the code was debugged to identify the root cause of the problem. It was established that the construction of the votes matrix relies on a dataset returned from a stored procedure to be in a specific order; ordered by BallotID (a unique sequential identifier for individual ballot papers, and which is a key into the table to identify other attributes of the Ballot, e.g. barcode, batch, etc., and to enable linking to other tables such as Contest and Vote). However, the stored procedure “Dashboard_GetBallots” which extracts the data for the construction of the vote matrix does not specify an ORDER BY clause and this can cause the code method to calculate the 1st and 2nd preference values incorrectly. The source code repository shows that the specific code module, stored procedure, underlying tables and indexes have not been modified since 2012. SQL Server does not guarantee the order of dataset output unless there is a specific ORDER BY clause. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188385.aspx. Extract:

Page 17 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 165 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

5.2.1 Stored Procedure : Dashboard_GetBallots

It can be seen from above that the query does not specify an ORDER BY clause. The stored procedure was modified in the test environment to include an ORDER BY clause as follows: ORDER BY BallotId

The final reports were then re-run several times and it was seen that the data matched the output produced manually on the night of the count every time.

This proves that the root cause of the issue is that the data was not sorted as expected when retrieved from the database.

5.2.2 Investigation into why data order is modified

Further investigation showed that there had been no significant changes to the code or database in these areas since 2012 and therefore we looked into what could cause the data order to be changed. The investigation identified some examples reported on SQL Server forums for when this scenario can occur: 1. An unordered index scan might be carried out in either allocation order or key order dependant on the isolation level in effect. 2. The merry go round scanning feature allows scans to be shared between concurrent queries. Page 18 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 166 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

3. Parallel plans are often non deterministic and order of results might depend on the degree of parallelism selected at runtime and concurrent workload on the server. 4. If the plan has nested loops with unordered pre-fetch this allows the inner side of the join to proceed using data from whichever I/Os happened to complete first The most relevant point from above is #3. SQL Server database server settings for Parallelism can have an impact on the execution plan and if parallelism is used the load of the query is spread across multiple processors which, when aggregated together to produce the results, increases the chance that the order is uncertain. There are 2 main settings that are related to Parallelism in this context: 1. Max Degree Of Parallelism (MDOP): https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/kb/2806535 This limits the number of processors to use in parallel plan execution. There are 3 sets of values that cause difference in operation: 0: This will utilise as many processors as are available and therefore may use parallelism 1: This will only utilise 1 CPU and will effectively disable parallelism. 2-n: This will utilise as many processors as specified [if available] and therefore may use parallelism 2. Cost Threshold For Parallelism: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188603(v=sql.105).aspx This value is used to specify a value that will be compared to the estimated cost of the query to determine whether or not to use a parallel plan. This is used in conjunction with MDOP. The effect of changing the settings can be seen in the execution plans for the core SQL for the Dashboard_GetBallots stored procedure. No Parallelism (MDOP=1):

Page 19 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 167 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

Parallelism (MDOP=2):

The 2016 setting for Max Degree Of Parallelism was 2. The SQL Servers used in the e-Counting system were all virtual servers and all had 4 vCPUs. This setting is in line with Microsoft’s recommended guidelines. Using the setting MDOP=1 (disable parallelism) and running the reports with the original version of the stored procedure produced the correct results. To summarise the sort order investigation, there is a missing ORDER BY clause in the stored procedure, and had this been in place, under any of these circumstances it would have guaranteed the correct report data. The SQL Server settings for MDOP were different in 2016 from 2012 and this is believed to have resulted in the data order change and the problems found in the reports.

5.3 Previous Testing Coverage and comparison

The results from the UAT testing were analysed in detail to check if this specific issue occurred during UAT; it did not occur in the UAT system; all reports were accurate. Small datasets; specifically UAT and Kit Readiness did not benefit from parallelism based on cost threshold not being exceeded, and that the query execution plan was simpler and did not modify the order of the data. Load testing was also undertaken. The aim of load testing was to confirm that the system would support the number of transaction throughput levels and ensure that there were no application, server and network performance bottle necks. Random images were processed by the test robots and at no point were there a set of known results to analyse. However, similar investigations on that dataset with MDOP settings enabling parallelism show that the issue would have been present.

5.4 Analysis of Recent System Changes

Other than QA Scanning modifications, no software changes have been made since 14-Oct-15 (version 5.1.10.8) prior to UAT and the gold build was produced on 13- Jan-16 from this version. Security patches were applied to servers up to 23-Feb-16. These are listed here… https://drsmk.sharepoint.com/Docs/_layouts/15/DocIdRedir.aspx?ID=DRSDOC-106- 20785

Page 20 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 168 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. Live Event GLA 2016 18-MAY-16 Count Issue e-counting system v1.0

All desktops and scanners retained system levels as of UAT. SQL Server version was 10.50.4042 for UAT and upgraded to 10.50.6220 prior to Kit Readiness. The change to the SQL Server configuration MDOP setting was as a result of setting up SQL Server in 2015 & 2016 according to industry best-practice guidelines. We cannot determine the guidelines followed in 2012 as we have not retained the originally installed systems from that time and this setting is not preserved in backups.

Page 21 of 21 Copyright© IntElect 2016. This document may notPage be copied, 169 reproduced, or used in any way, either in whole or in part, without prior permission. This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 4 Appendix 3

DIRECTORATE OF AUDIT, RISK, AND ASSURANCE Internal Audit Service Provider to the GLA

REVIEW OF LONDON MAYOR’S ELECTION COUNT DRAFT

Page 171 DISTRIBUTION LIST

Audit Team David Esling, Head of Audit Assurance | Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime

Steve Snaith, TRA Partner | RSM UK Ltd. Arno Franken, TRA Manager | RSM UK Ltd.

Report Distribution List

Jeff Jacobs – GLA Head of Paid Service

DRAFT

May 2016 Page 172 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count CONTENTS

Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background 1

Review Objectives 1

Scope 1

Audit Opinion 2

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• General Overview 4 • IT Architecture 4 • Root Cause Analysis, UAT and Recommendations 4 • Production of Final Results 6 May 2016 5

Appendices

IT Architecture Diagram 6

DRAFT

May 2016 Page 173 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page | 1

1. Background 1.1 This review was carried out following a request from the GLA to examine the process followed to deal with issues that arose during the count at 6th of May in the London Mayoral elections held in May of this year. In this report, we set out our findings and comments on our evaluation of the process followed by IntElect regarding the follow-up to the discrepancies found in the 1st and 2nd preference totals for the Mayoral candidates.

1.2 The GLA (Greater London Authority) outsourced the e-counting process for the London Mayoral Election to IntElect. IntElect comprises DRS Data Services Ltd and Electoral Reform Services (ERS) who are working in partnership to deliver the GLA 2016 project (as they did in 2012).

1.3 Our evaluation took place in May and included a site visit to IntElect’s office in Milton Keynes where we held interviews with key individuals. The attendees were Steve Gowers (DRS CEO), Tracey Talor (DRS Senior Project Manager), Eric Keith (DRS Software Manager) and Firnaz Nagoorthamby (DRS e- Counting Lead Software Developer).

1.4 E-counting involves scanning ballot papers through machines that capture and store the votes on a secure database. As with the London Mayoral Election, IntElect provided their scanners and their software, and printed the ballots.

1.5 During the production of the Mayoral Results on the 6th of May, there were discrepancies identified in the 1st and 2nd preference totals for the Mayoral candidates in the preliminary reports, in the final reports at constituency level and in the final reports at the central consolidated level.

1.6 We reviewed the process that was followed and the actions taken by IntElect to produce the correct Mayoral results on the evening of the 6th of May. We also reviewed the validity of the causes of the discrepancies as determined by IntElect in their investigation report of 18th of May, the reasons the causes of the discrepancies were not identified during tests that were carried out on the e-counting system, and what testing would have needed to be done to identify the cause in advance of the election.

2. Review Objectives 2.1 Our overall objective was to evaluate the process followed by IntElect regarding the follow-up to the discrepancies found in the 1st and 2nd preference totals for the Mayoral candidates. 2.2 In particular,DRAFT we reviewed: • The actions taken by IntElect on the evening of Friday the 6th of May to resolve the discrepancies in their systems in terms of 1st and 2nd preference votes for the London Mayor election. • The process that IntElect followed to produce the Mayoral results.

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 174 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page | 2

• The results to confirm they are in accordance with the scanned and recorded data. • The validity of the cause of the discrepancies as set out in the investigation report and covering letter from IntElect. • The reasons that the causes of the discrepancies were not identified during the tests that were carried out on the e-counting system and what testing would have needed to be done to identify the cause in advance of the election. 3. Scope of Review 3.1 We evaluated the process followed by IntElect regarding the follow-up to the discrepancies found in the 1st and 2nd preference totals for the Mayoral candidates. Specifically, we:

• Interviewed key individuals including Steve Gowers (DRS CEO), Eric Keith (DRS Software Manager) and Firnaz Nagoorthamby (DRS e-Counting Lead Software Developer). All these individuals were directly involved in the preparation and review of IntElect’s investigation report of 18th of May 2016, as well in the process to solve the discrepancies. • We reviewed the application- & database code responsible for the generation of the reports. In particular, we tested the validity of the cause of the discrepancies by means of a simulation of the error that was described in the investigation report of IntElect. • The scope also included review of the manual process that IntElect followed to generate the final reports both at constituency and consolidated level. • Finally we reviewed the User Acceptance Testing that was carried out prior to the election.

4. Audit Opinion

4.1 We have concluded the following for each of the above areas reviewed:

• Following an assessment of the related control environment and actions taken to resolve the discrepancy once identified the overall process carried out to produce an accurate final count was reasonable and appropriate. • Our review of the (partly manual) process that IntElect followed to produce the Mayoral results did not identify any irregularities. DRAFT • We determined, based on a sample of 5 constituencies that the final results were in accordance with the scanned and recorded data.

• Our review identified that the cause of the discrepancies as set out in the investigation report and covering letter from IntElect of 18th of May are valid.

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 175 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page | 3

• Based on the results of this review, the reason that the causes of the discrepancies were not identified during tests was in the main due to the fact that the test databases did not have sufficient capacity. The phenomenon of parallelism which led to discrepancies in the results only occurs from an unusually high amount of records. During UAT, a database of 60,000 records per contest was used. Based on interview and walk-through, we would recommend a database that will reflect the expected amount of records during the election is maintained in future.

DRAFT

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 176 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page | 4

5. General Overview of Structure 5.1 We determined that the e-Counting system has 5 core modules: Registration, Scanning, Verification, Adjudication and the Centre Manager & Dashboard. The Dashboard module is particularly relevant to the audit as it is used to generate the reports at constituency level.

5.2 The London Count Centre Structure consists of a Central Site (City Hall) and three Supersites (Alexandra Palace, Olympia and Excel). Each supersite was managing the e-counting process for several constituencies, 14 in total. IntElect provided the supersites with a Centre Manager (1 for each constituency), a Deputy Centre Manager (1 for each constituency), a Co-Coordinator (1 per supersite) as well with several systems, support and software engineers.

5.3 We reviewed the design of the e-counting process and the ballot paper workflow method. The design shows a diversity of physicial, technical and administrative controls and no related issues were noted. 6. IT Environment

6.1 We determined that the IT Architecture follows the London Count Centre Structure. There are four main physical IT environments (City Hall, Alexandra Palace, Olympia and Excel). Each physical IT environment consists of a vSphere cluster, workstations, displays, scanners, firewalls and switches. Each supersite manages the e-counting process of several constituencies. For each constituency a separate virtual environment exists with several virtual machines, such as: application server, SQL server, staging server, image server and a communication server. For an overview of the IT Architecture, see Appendix 1. Based on our review of the design of the infrastructure, we did not identify any specific issues that directly correlate with the initial data discrepancies in the mayoral results. Application Server

6.2 The e-counting application code repository is stored at a Team Foundation Server (TFS) within DRS’s network. We determined that the GLA 2016 project was migrated from the GLA 2012 project on the 3rd of February 2015. We also found that no software changes have been made since the 14th of October 2015 (version 5.1.10.8), which is the version that was used during User Acceptance Testing that took place between 2 and 6 November 2015. Based on inspection of the virtual machines that IntElect restored for the current audit, we determined that the version that was used during the elections was the gold build of versionDRAFT 5.1.10.8, which was produced on the 13th of January 2016. 6.3 We reviewed the security patches on the application server and found that security patches were applied through 5th of April 2016. In general, security patches should be applied monthly, which is in line with Microsoft’s best practices1. In our opinion and based on our evidence, whether security patches

1 https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletins.aspx

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 177 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page | 5

have been applied or not, this did not trigger the cause of the discrepancies in the production of the mayoral results reports. Database Server Overview

6.4 We identified that the SQL Server version in use during the elections was 10.50.6220, which is the same version as prior to Kit Readiness testing.

6.5 We found that the configuration of the Max Degree of Parallelism was set to 2, which means that the number of processors employed to run a single statement for each parallel plan execution amounts to a maximum of 2 processors. This is appropriate, since the physical systems only have 2 processors.

6.6 We identified that the configuration of the Cost Threshold for parallelism was set to 5, which is the threshold at which Microsoft SQL Server creates and runs parallel plans for queries. It should be noted, that the value of 5 is the default value that comes with a new installation of SQL server, which is usually appropriate. SQL Server creates and runs a parallel plan for a query only when the estimated cost to run a serial plan for the same query is higher than the value set in cost threshold for parallelism. The cost refers to an estimated elapsed time in seconds required to run the serial plan on a specific hardware configuration.

6.7 Note: We could not determine which configurations were used during the Mayoral Elections of 2012 for comparison purposes, since IntElect have not retained the originally installed systems from that time and these settings are not preserved in backups. 7. Root Cause Analysis and User Acceptance Testing (UAT)

7.1 We performed a code review2 and a walk-through of the production of the Mayoral Results. We determined that the code that is responsible for the construction of the report consists of code written in C# (C-sharp), which relies on the results of a SQL stored procedure called ‘Dashboard_GetBallots’. Our code review confirms that the C# code that constructs the report, expects the dataset that is returned from the stored procedure to be in a specific order.

7.2 Our resulting audit walk-through confirmed that the SQL stored procedure that was used during the elections, in combination with the high volume of records, invokes the SQL Server to use parallelism, which results in another ordering of the data each time the query is executed and hence in the incorrect allocation to the 1st and 2nd preference votes of a given candidate. In summary, due to the large volumes of records, the SQL server had to use two processors (instead of usually 1),DRAFT which led to an unordered return of the results to the application that was producing the report. Since the application that produced the report was expecting the results in a certain order (and this was not the case anymore),

2 A code review is a comprehensive analysis of source code in a programming project with the intent of discovering bugs, security breaches or violations of programming conventions. In this case, a code review was performed specifically aimed at discovering and confirming the issue that led to the discrepancies in the 1st and 2nd preference votes.

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 178 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page | 6

the application made errors in allocating a vote to either 1st preference of 2nd preference.

7.3 Our walk-through confirmed that adding an ‘ORDER BY’ clause to the SQL stored procedure resolves this issue, since it forces the SQL query to return the results in the order that is expected by the C# code responsible for the construction of the report.

7.4 Based on discussion with IntElect and our own investigation, we confirmed that the effect of parallelism is only triggered when the estimated cost to run a serial plan for the same query is higher than the value set in cost threshold for parallelism. This is usually the case when there are high volumes of records that need to be processed. A separate volume test with at least the (expected) amount of records during the elections would have discovered the issue.

7.5 Based on our review of the User Acceptance Testing (UAT) documentation, we determined that a total of 180,000 ballot papers were used during the UAT (60,000 per contest). We determined that the effect of parallelism does not occur at these relative low volumes of records. A separate volume test with at least the (expected) amount of records during the election would have discovered the issue.

Recommendation

Given the facts as described above, we would recommend, for a future e-count, a separate volume test which uses a database with at least the (expected) amount of records during the election. We would specifically emphasise that the test be performed with known results, since a volume test without known results would only address the current issue. A volume test with known results will have a broader scope and be more effective in detecting

8. Production of Final Results 6 May 2016 8.1 On 6 May 2016, it was agreed between the GLA and IntElect to focus on the production of the results rather than to investigate the root cause of the discrepancies at that time. The agreed approach was to generate a specific SQL-query to produce manually data to identify total votes per constituency, per candidate, and by preference (1st or 2nd).

8.2 We found significant evidence that the results in the final reports at constituency level are in accordance with the recorded data in the SQL- database. In line with our Internal Audit guidelines, we performed a sample test on the followingDRAFT five constituencies and determined that 1st and 2nd preference votes for each candidate are in accordance with the results of the SQL-query that was executed on the recorded data: • Bexley & Bromley • Lambeth & Southwark • Greenwhich & Lewisham

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 179 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page | 7

• Havering & Redbridge • City & East

8.3 Since the discrepancies in the 1st and 2nd preference votes also affected the results at consolidated level, another SQL-query was generated and used on the 6th of May 2016 to generate the raw data for the matrix of count of 2nd preference votes per candidate based on 1st preference candidate vote. We determined based on a sample on the same constituencies as listed under 8.2 that the final results in the consolidated report are in accordance with the recorded data.

DRAFT

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 180 Appendix 1 Page | 8

IT Architecture Diagram Overall

Alexandra Palace

DRAFT

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 181 Appendix 1 Page | 9

Excel

Olympia

DRAFT

May 2016 Review of London’s Mayor Election Count Page 182