Agenda item
Elections 2014/2015 Legacy
- Meeting of General Purposes Committee, Thursday, 24th September, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 8.1)
- View the background to item 8.1
Minutes:
John Williams, Head of Service, Democratic Service, introduced the report and updated the Committee on the 7th May 2015 – UK Parliamentary General Election, constituencies of Bethnal Green & Bow and Poplar & Limehouse.
and the 11th June 2015 – Tower Hamlets Mayoral by-election and Stepney Green Ward by-election.
The Service Head, Democratic Services tabled an updated Appendix 1 and highlighted the following:
· The preparatory work and planning for the delivery of the 7th May elections drew on a range of experience and lessons learnt at previous elections in Tower Hamlets, including the London Mayor and Assembly elections plus two Council ward by-elections in April and May 2012, which were the subject of a report by the Electoral Commission in relation to a number of allegations of electoral fraud; and the combined European Parliamentary, Tower Hamlets Mayor and Council elections on 22nd May 2014, which were also subject to some allegations, following which the Mayoral election was avoided by the Election Court on 23rd April 2015. A range of initiatives were developed to ensure a free and fair contest, efficient delivery of the elections and an orderly poll and count in each case.
· In turn the planning work for the 11th June 2015 elections drew on further lessons learnt in the process of delivering the 7th May polls.
· The result of the two elections was a more successful election which attracted positive feedback from a number of sources and was not been subject to any challenge.
· It was proposed that a new Chief Executive due to take up post with the Council in October 2015, would take up the role of Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer for Tower Hamlets.
A review of the delivery of the May and June 2015 elections was being undertaken to identify the lessons learnt, improvements identified etc, in order to provide a legacy for future elections in Tower Hamlets. It was considered that the review was likely also to provide useful recommendations for Returning Officers, Police forces and partner agencies elsewhere in the UK.
The Committee noted that The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, in his capacity
as UK Government Ant-Corruption Champion, was currently leading an Electoral Fraud Review and had issued a call for evidence in connection with that review with a deadline of 8th October 2015. The Returning Officer’s expectation was that the legacy report on the Tower Hamlets elections would be able to make a useful contribution to that review.
The Committee noted that the Legacy report included contributions from partner agencies that were involved in delivering or overseeing the 2015 elections locally. These including the Metropolitan Police (both Tower Hamlets Police and the Special Enquiry Team at Scotland Yard), the Electoral Commission, the DCLG Commissioners and Election Agents of candidates at the 2015 elections. The contributions included their views on how the elections were conducted – i.e. what went well, what could
have been improved and what suggestions would they make for future
elections.
The Service Head, Democratic Services provided an outline of the draft legacy report which was currently in preparation with a view to being
completed by the end of September 2015. It was anticipated that this would enable any relevant matters to be submitted as evidence to the Electoral Fraud Review by 8th October 2015.
A working draft of the report was tabled at the meeting to enable Members of the General Purposes Committee to have an oversight of the main areas covered in the legacy report. The areas were noted as follows:-
- Context and background
- Description of the elections in Tower Hamlets 2014 and 2015, together
with the issues raised in the Election Court judgement in April 2015
- An assessment of the actions taken in respect of each element of the
elections, i.e.:-
· Joint working
· Registration
· Integrity measures
· Postal Votes
· Polling Stations
· Verification and count.
- Outcomes, issues for consideration, continuing challenges
Conclusions and recommendations, these would be presented in
three categories as set out below:-
(i) Tower Hamlets-specific issues
Those of the anti-fraud and other measures utilised at the elections in May
2015 that were introduced in response to specific issues that had arisen at
previous elections in Tower Hamlets and conditions locally. Which of these
worked particularly well; any that were unsuccessful or left room for further
improvement; and any that would require revision in order to be repeated in
future years because of resource restrictions or any other reason?
(ii) Lessons and recommendations for general application
Those initiatives or actions taken locally that were successful and would be of
interest more generally to agencies and authorities in other areas of the
country. Also elements of electoral delivery that were problematic despite the
measures taken and any recommendations that Tower Hamlets can make for
improved guidance nationally on best practice.
4
(iii) The legal framework involving any areas in which the current legislative framework could have impeded the efforts to ensure an efficient and free and fair election; and any recommendations to propose to government for possible changes to the law, for example:-
· Was the current range of election offences, corrupt and illegal practices still useful and appropriate in the context of a modern election?
· Were the powers of the Returning Officer or the Police sufficient to
address the threat of electoral fraud or malpractice, prevent false
registration or personation?
· Did the statutory election timetable adequately allow for complaints to
be investigated prior to the poll or in good time afterwards; and any
fraud to be remedied in a timely fashion after the result of the election
was declared?
· What factors worked against the swift investigation and prosecution of
offenders?
· Was the current method of challenging an election result (the Election
Petition) still the most suitable process?
There was a lengthy discussion where Members asked a number of questions and made various comments on the reports before them. The following points were noted:
· With regards to concerns about the high number of postal votes rejected, particularly in the May Local and Mayoral elections, it was noted that the main reason which led to most postal votes being rejected was due to signatures on electoral registration forms not matching those on ballot forms. Although it was acknowledged that signatures may have changed or altered over a period of time, it was a key feature of the system of identification in postal voting which was highlighted to all those registering for postal voting, that there was a need to provide their normal signature, which should match what was provided on the voters registration form. The opportunity to refresh one’s signature would be provided at the next registration exercise.
· Members found the choice of venue for the election Count at the last election an excellent one as it gave the opportunity for transparency, stringent monitoring and for adequate count and security staff to be deployed.
· Members found security at the election count excellent, in particular, the verification of individuals entering the premises.
· With respect to Members’ concerns of multiple voting using different addresses, John Williams underlined that it was a criminal offence to vote more than once although an individual may be registered at different addresses for example in different boroughs. Members cited examples of some landlords registering for postal voting (which was an offence). John Williams undertook to highlight this as an area which required scrutiny.
· On the question of the reliability of the administration of the count on postal votes to ensure accuracy and an adherence to the regulations, it was noted that the key was adopting a systematic approach, starting with verification of signatures, a time consuming exercise.
· On the question of whether an electronic count might be worth considering in future to aid speed and accuracy, John Mills in response stated that that was an option the next Returning Officer could consider after a risk assessment.
· On the question of whether there was a better system of challenging an election result to ensure a speedier process, John Williams stated that an election result challenge was an extremely lengthy process given the legal hurdles required to be surmounted by petitioners.
Following discussion it was
RESOLVED –
That the report be noted.
Supporting documents: