Law, Property and Investigations

Written evidence received for the 2010 Elections in London Working Group: Election Review 2010 As of November 2010 Contents London Borough of Brent 3 London borough of Camden 6 City of London Corporation 10 London Borough of Ealing 11 London Borough of Enfield 30 London Borough of Hackney 34 London Borough of Haringey 36 London Borough of Havering 40 London Borough of Islington 42 Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames 44 London Borough of Lewisham 46 London Borough of Newham 65 London Borough of Southwark 67 London Borough of Sutton 72 London Borough of Wandswroth 73 Mr Dismore, Former MP for Hendon 78 Room 106 Brent Town Hall Forty Lane, Wembley Middlesex HA9 9HD TEL: 020 8937 1353 FAX: 020 8937 1360 EMAIL: [email protected] WEB: www.brent.gov.uk LEGAL & DEMOCRATIC SERVICES Your Ref: Mark Roberts Our Ref: Executive director of Secretariat Greater London Council City Hall Date: 8 October 2010 The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA Dear Mark 2010 Elections in London Working Group With reference to your letter dated 24 September 2010 addressed to the Chief Executive inviting contributions from Returning Officers. Our Borough Solicitor undertook a review of the May elections and produced a report recommending areas for attention. I set out below some edited extracts from the report which I hope will be of some use to the work of the Elections Review Working Group. The factor that is fundamental to any review is that this was a joint election of Local and General, and a combination of two of the most complex elections taking place simultaneously, with the impact of a greater turn out generally and locally. The London Borough of Brent had a 62% turnout that added an extra dimension to running the local element. These complications were certainly echoed throughout London, with particular issues arising at a number of boroughs. There were other areas in the country where the Electoral Commission noted in their interim report particular difficulties arose, either with long queues or people not being able to vote. Brent fortunately did not experience problems of this nature. The interest shared across the nation in relation to this General Election, added to an increase in both enquiries prior to the election and volume of voters turning out as well as queries on the day of the election itself. The raising of the awareness of the election in the media resulted in an increase in changes to the register. There was a very high volume of questions coming into the elections team and the types of questions such as, how do I vote, where is my polling station, why was I not able to vote for Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg or David Cameron etc. added to the pressure on the team. Other authorities also experienced an exceptionally high level of telephone queries The Electoral Commission produced a good practice template of a project plan in 2009 which Brent used. The project plan anticipated a Local Election but highlighted that a General Election would need to take place by June 2010, and that there could be a dual election. This led to the need for dual planning until the General Election was announced. It is only due to the considerable hard work and dedication of the Democratic Services team providing additional support to the Electoral Services team that enabled the work on preparing for the election to continue when there was extreme pressure on the service. In respect of colleagues across London, all colleagues have commented on the need to spend a minimum 12 hours a day, 5 days sometimes 7 days a week, in the run up the elections and at least 6-8 weeks prior to the election, due the intense pressures on working to get the register updated and sending out postal votes and dealing with a large number of queries. One of the key issues in this and future elections is the number of postal votes. The number of postal votes in Brent had risen to approximately 18,000, and this added to the strain on the electoral services team, needing to send out postal votes as well as the continual updating of the register. This process was problematic in London and throughout England and certainly colleagues elsewhere had similar issues. Return of postal votes issued tends to be higher than the turnout at polling stations, at around 75%. Checking of postal votes is a project in itself requiring dedicated input from several staff over a number of days. The numbers returned to polling stations was such that checking of identifiers did not end until around 3:30am. One of the items highlighted as a possible reason that a number of postal votes that allegedly went missing rather than being delivered was due to the prescriptive format of the envelope and the ballot papers which appeared similar to junk mail. This required the provision, in accordance with legislation, of urgent replacement postal votes right up to the day of the elections and of course this added logistical difficulties. The number of requests for votes to be re-issued on the election day became problematic. One of the issues that was raised in the Electoral Commission report and in discussions with colleagues elsewhere were problems around the integrity of the register. Some of the information on the form to complete for registration and which is statutory caused difficulty. The forms which were downloaded from the Electoral Commission website led members of the public to believe that as soon as they had completed an online form they were registered. This was obviously not the case and indeed this often led to increased work for the authority in checking people’s registration when they were already on the register. Some late registrations had to be investigated by Internal Audit, although they were ultimately found to be valid. The information provided by members of the public in relation to names to be placed on the register is not always consistent, made worse by the different format of the Electoral Commission forms. Clerical errors did arise on the day of the election which were altered as required but this increased the volume of work. Brent took the view that sending out confirmatory letters following publication of the register was important and it is considered that this led to as accurate register as possible although it is a very expensive exercise. There was an increase this time in requests for proxy votes after the closing date for postal votes given the deadline for proxy votes is so much closer to the election date. This added pressure both on the day and prior to the election. The training for presiding officers is crucial, including the importance of a run through of how the ballot paper accounts are undertaken at the close of poll. It is planned in future to use presiding officers who have undertaken the role on a number of occasions and have experience of where pinch point difficulties arise to provide pragmatic and practical solutions as to their ways of dealing with long queues, or difficult members of the public. One result of our review is that we are abandoning our practice of employing one PO per polling place so that there is a PO in each polling station. There were errors in the printing of the ballot papers. The printers had previously successfully provided the authority with ballot papers but had problems meeting the demands of these joint elections. Reprints were necessary and this added tension for staff within the Elections/Democratic Services Team. The final copies of ballot papers for the polling stations were only available and had to be collected on the bank holiday Monday at around 6pm. The combination of the two elections was a considerable strain on the Elections team and on the Democratic Services team despite considerable support provided by colleagues elsewhere. This was still insufficient to deal with the increased workload for staff to the point that officers working 60+ hours a week for 6 to 8 weeks prior to the election entered the election day exhausted and not having had sufficient time to undertake all the planning that would have eased and made for a smoother election day. The General Election count lasted longer than anticipated leaving senior officers with very little opportunity for rest before the local election count began. The fact that the election went as smoothly as it did and it was a successful count both on General and Local elections is a tribute to the dedication and hard work of all the officers involved. However it is considered that this pressure was too great and additional resources were required, at all levels. In conclusion, London boroughs who were involved in dual elections had to manage a considerable increase in work in relation to the register, postal votes and the running of both elections. The team who deal with the elections at Brent are a very small dedicated team, who worked well beyond capacity. With an election taking place most years, a canvass taking place during August to November and a referendum planned in May 2011 this continues to be the case. Yours sincerely Peter Goss Democratic Services Manager Enquiries to :Asha Paul Head of Democratic Services Democratic Services Email [email protected] Electoral Registration & Elections Office 020 7974 5944 London Borough of Camden Camden Town Hall Judd Street London WC1H 9LZ Camelia Thomas Greater London Authority Post Point 10 City Hall The Queens Walk London SE1 2AA 22nd October 2010 Dear Camelia Thomas Comments for London Assembly 2010 Elections in London Working Group I am writing on behalf of Camden’s Returning Officer Moira Gibb in response to your letter of 24 September 2010 requesting contributions from Borough Returning Officers regarding lessons learned from the organisation and running of the 2010 General and local elections.

Load more