Written evidence submitted by by Sir Ken Knight, Intervention Lead Commissioner, London Borough of Tower Hamlets [LAC 10]

Executive Summary

Introduction

1. I am pleased to submit the statement below to the Committee which outlines the approach and key findings of the Commissioners following their arrival in Tower Hamlets on 17th December 2014.
2. Two Commissioners, myself and Max Caller CBE, were initially nominated by the Secretary of State at the Department of Communities and Local Government. We were later joined by two further Commissioners, Chris Allison CBE and Alan Wood CBE, as a consequence of the further Directions imposed on the Council in April and May 2015. To avoid repetition, correspondence from Commissioners which highlights progress is attached as an appendix.
3. I would particularly draw the Committee's attention to the Commissioners' letter dated 22 March 2016 addressed to the Executive Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets attached at Appendix 2.3 which summarises the position reached at that time.
4. On arrival of the Commissioners in the Borough, it was the intention to meet the Statutory Officers, all of whom were either interim or acting up appointments, and the Mayor and the other Political Group Leaders together in order that we could outline our initial approach, initiate working relationships and establish the ground rules. We were able to meet the Interim Head of Paid Service, whose substantive post was Corporate Director but it proved impossible to schedule a meeting with the Mayor either alone or with the other Group Leaders. Unfortunately, this was a common theme throughout the incumbency of Mayor Rahman - meetings were arranged, delayed or cancelled and when we did meet they were courteous but inconsequential.
5. It was clear that the majority of Councillors on the Council in the Labour and Conservative Groups wished to work with Commissioners to seek improvements but it became apparent that the Administration together with a number of the senior officer team were not convinced of the need for intervention and so worked to justify their existing position.

Initial Activity

6. In line with the Directions, Commissioners’ initial focus was on establishing a grant determination process and reviewing the electoral administration arrangements.

Grant determination process
 

7. It was felt important to put in place an open and transparent process for grants to contrast with the previous arrangements and to seek the appropriate involvement of Councillors. The Commissioners found that it proved to be a major challenge for the Council to establish a register of all the areas where grants, as defined by the Direction, were being awarded to the extent that a comprehensive list was not available for the first 6 months. It was even more difficult for the Council to establish a cross party group of members who could provide advice to Commissioners on the awarding of grants to individual groups. While Commissioners asked for this to be established at the outset, an appropriate process was not in place until May 2016.
8. It was necessary to completely recast the grant processes and re-establish delegation and reporting systems in the public domain to ensure that the criteria and the allocation of resources together with the decision making process became open and transparent. The Commissioners found that there appeared to be no link between grants made and the published Council criteria, community need, geography or previous delivery.
9. Even more striking was that there was evidence of inappropriate criteria and non-transparent decision being used. This featured in both the Inspector's report and the subsequent Election Court hearing which resulted in Mayor Rahman being disqualified from office. http://www.hendersonchambers.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Richard-Mawrey-QC-Judgment-23-April-2015.pdf. This was confirmed by Lord Justice Lloyd Jones in the High Court in January 2016 where the judgement (CO/3413/2015) records that the grants fund was used corruptly to induce people to vote for the then Mayor and thus defined as bribery.[1] The evidence that was available to Commissioners pointed in this direction from the outset and should have been evident to reasonably competent and experienced local government officers.
10. Commissioners have held public, grant making decision meetings on a regular cycle to determine grant applications based on an agreed consulted upon framework that has been prepared under the Commissioners’ directions.
11. Earlier this year the Council agreed the formation of a cross party Committee (a sub-committee of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committee) to provide Member advice to the Commissioners on Grant decisions in order to satisfy the original request made by the Commissioners. With the formation of the new Committee in May 2016, the Mayor John Biggs and his Deputy Mayor responsible for third sector matters accepted the invitation to sit alongside the Commissioners at the public grant decision meetings as a step on the way to returning these decisions to Council control.

Electoral administration arrangements
 

12. As a significant element of the Directions related to election matters, Commissioner Max Caller resigned as an Electoral Commissioner prior to accepting the post as Intervention Commissioner to avoid a potential conflict of interest in this Direction.
13. The Commissioners found that the Council’s existing Returning Officer had been unsupported by the organisation leading to the well-publicised problems at the European and local elections.
14. It was concluded that it was preferable to support the existing Returning Officer in his role rather than remove him as the Direction allowed for. However, it was essential for him to have access to experienced support. I was grateful to the London Borough of Lewisham to agree to release Mr Barry Quirk to provide hands on support through the Parliamentary and subsequent Mayoral by-election. Many valuable lessons were learnt from these elections which were documented and submitted to Sir Eric Pickles as evidence in his review of Electoral Fraud matters, attached at Appendix 3.

Appointment of Permanent Statutory Officers

15. The Directions required permanent appointments to be made to the three Statutory Officer posts (Head of Paid Service, Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer) which had all been filled by interim appointments since at least October 2014. Commissioners recognised the appointment of suitably qualified and experienced individuals as a fundamental building block in returning the Council to normality.
16. It was important that the appointment process involved all of the political groups on the Council, both to ensure the individuals acceptance and to demonstrate to candidates for the posts that the Authority was committed to change. Commissioners also wished to ensure that the vacancies were subject to open competition. Appointments to the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer posts were successfully made under the supervision of the Commissioners without undue delay.
17. The appointment of a permanent Head of Paid Service with a suitably defined role proved more problematic. It became clear that Mayor Rahman was not prepared to engage in any process to either negotiate a job description or to initiate an open competitive process leading to an appointment. Commissioners found it necessary to draw this to the attention of the Secretary of State in our letter dated 18th March 2015 which resulted in a further Direction. Even so, the Council found it difficult to make progress which necessitated the Job Profile for this key post being specified by Commissioners, who then oversaw each step of the appointment process.
18. The position was further complicated by the decision of the Election Court on 23 April 2015 to declare Mayor Rahman’s election void during the period of seeking a permanent Head of Paid Service. To ensure that the foundations were laid for the future, Commissioners exercised their power to designate the successful post-holder as the Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer for the Council, thus placing the responsibility at the highest officer level.
19. It took a considerable time before all three newly appointed post holders were in place in their new roles in the Borough. This delayed the impact of the incoming Mayor, John Biggs, following his election and has contributed to delay in compliance with the Directions. Target setting for the Chief Executive was not completed until 13 May 2016 and formal delegation of powers to the post holder remains outstanding.

Publicity and Communications

20. The Council’s preferred method of communication with residents was a print newspaper, East End Life, which was published weekly and therefore not compliant with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity.[2] A significant resource was required by the Council to maintain this publication.  The internal charging structure, which purported to demonstrate value for money, was based on the need to make the newspaper break even, rather than on the Parliamentary Code or communications objectives.
21. The communications background was further complicated by the fact that Mayor Rahman had, via his office, contracted for communications advice that was personal to him. The contract terms provided that such advice to the Mayor was not to be disclosed to any other part of the Council.  It was evident to Commissioners that this activity could not comply with the Code of Practice as required by the Direction.
22. The initial approach of the Council was to seek to defend the existing position, although the Mayoral communications contracts were terminated once Commissioners became aware of them.  Eventually the Local Government Association (LGA) was commissioned by the Council to undertake a communications audit which was completed in November 2015. 
23. Commissioners noted that there was resistance within the organisation to implementing the recommendations and required East End Life to become Code Compliant. It was published for the last time on 16 May 2016 and a revised communications strategy (not solely reliant on print based publications) is currently being completed.
24. Commissioners anticipate being consulted on the required resource plan following the Communications strategy review which should establish compliance with the terms of the original Direction.

Organisational Culture

25. Commissioners concluded in their response to the Council’s initial Best Value Plan submission to the Secretary of State that cultural change at both Member and senior officer level together with improved working relationships were essential to a successful exit from the Direction regime. Some examples best serve to illustrate this:

       Mayor Rahman being advised that the Council could not insist on his attendance at any scrutiny meeting or answering any question at full Council as this would be in breach of his human rights which meant that the Council was unable to effectively hold the Mayor to account.

       Members resorting to Freedom of Information requests to officers of the Council to get answers to a number of routine Member Enquiries.

       The content of the officer presentation to the first all staff conference following the appointment of Commissioners implying that there was little to correct in the normal working of the Borough suggesting that it was in denial of the Inspectors’ finding.

       Conflicts of interest were not routinely recorded.

26. It is also of note that Commissioners have also been in receipt of a number of reports from whistleblowers.  This does not fall directly within the Directions of the Commissioners but it has necessitated meeting with whistleblowers and taking evidence. Individuals who have come forward to Commissioners have made it clear that their past experience would not lead them to trust the Council investigating concerns thoroughly and effectively nor would they feel confident that their employment position would be protected. 
27. Commissioners do not have the resources to undertake significant investigations on their own account. However, Commissioners have sought to direct the internal and external audit bodies onto lines of enquiry which would enable Commissioners to validate both the validity of the whistleblowing allegations and to propose to the management action which should be undertaken.
28. The Council has reviewed the whistleblowing policy to deal with future complaints and allegations. However, Commissioners are now seeking a separate process to provide a trusted route for whistleblowers to report past allegations of malpractice so that they can be investigate appropriately whilst adhering to the best practice included in the Department for Business Innovation and Skills’ Whistleblowing Prescribed Persons Guidance (March 2015).[3]
29. The separate whistleblowing process for dealing with matters regarding past malpractice together with a specific action plan to address a comprehensive review of organisational culture remains important outstanding issues.

Overview and conclusion

30. On the basis of the evidence reviewed by Commissioners the justification for Directions is fully demonstrated. 
31. The Council’s initial approach on the arrival of the Commissioners was to promise compliance but other than in specific areas, to make little or no progress on either the specific Directions or the underlying issues.
32. Only since the election of Mayor John Biggs and the three newly appointed statutory officers taking up post in the summer and autumn of 2015 has it been possible for the Council to make progress in compliance with the actions required by the Best Value Directions.
33. There remains significant work to be completed to ensure that the required improvements have been made together with evidence that the policy changes have been embedded and taken effect before it would be possible for Commissioners to advise the Secretary of State that the Directions have been fully complied with.
34. Commissioners have been clear to the Council that we do not wish to remain in Tower Hamlets overseeing the work covered by the Directions for any longer than is necessary. Equally, we do not underestimate the challenge which still faces the Council.

K J Knight

Sir Ken Knight CBE QFSM

Lead Commissioner London Borough of Tower Hamlets

June 2016

List of Appendices

Appendix 1 –Commissioners biographies

Appendix 2 – Correspondence to the Executive Mayor

Appendix 2.1 – 18 March 2015

Appendix 2.2 – 16 September 2015

Appendix 2.3 – 22 March 2016

Appendix 3 – Electoral Fraud review submission, 6 October 2015

Appendix 1

Sir Ken Knight CBE QFSM (Nominated 17th December 2014)

Sir Ken Knight CBE QFSM was the government’s Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser for England from 2007 until January 2013, advising ministers and senior officials on fire policy and major incidents and also offered operational advice on preparedness and response during the London 2012 Olympics.

Since leaving the post, Sir Ken has continued to provide independent advice to public and private sector organisations. He worked in local government for over 40 years and began his career as a firefighter in 1966, working in a number of fire services.

He served as London’s Fire Commissioner from 2003 until 2007. He was awarded the Queens’ Fire Service Medal in 1991 and the CBE in 2001. In 2006, Sir Ken was knighted in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the fire and rescue service.

Max Caller CBE (Nominated 17th December 2014)

Max Caller CBE has amassed 33 years’ experience in London boroughs with the majority at chief officer level. As Chief Executive of Hackney, he managed the transition of the authority from the worst in the country to one of the fastest improving.

As Chief Executive of Barnet he introduced a cabinet form of governance and an effective scrutiny system, which was one of the models for subsequent legislation.

Max was appointed the first Regional Returning Officer for London for the 1999 European elections, was Deputy Chief Counting Officer for the UK wide Alternative Vote referendum and has been involved in electoral pilot arrangements on an all-postal/electronic counting system for borough and mayoral elections.

He has also served as a short term observer for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, overseen elections in Albania and Montenegro and as a Commonwealth observer for elections in Kenya and Ghana. Since April 2010 he has been chairman of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

Chris Allison CBE (Nominated 29th April 2015)

Having retired after 30 years with the Metropolitan Police Service, Chris Allison is a now Director of his own consultancy business working with a number of public and private sector clients.

Chris Allison spent the majority of his policing career as a uniformed officer, rising to the rank of Assistant Commissioner. His last major role in the police was as the National Olympic Security Coordinator, responsible for leading the planning and delivery of the national security operation for the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012 and he was awarded a CBE in the 2013 Birthday Honours list for this work.

Throughout his service, he was heavily involved in the policing of public order events and since 1996; he undertook a command or oversight role at almost all of the major events and incidents that took place in London. He was the Police Gold Commander for the terrorist atrocities that took place on the London Underground on the 7th July 2005 for which he was awarded an MBE.

In the past, he was the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) lead on licensing / alcohol matters and the ACPO lead for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) matters. He was also head of the ACPO Olympic Business Area.

Alan Wood CBE (Nominated 29th April 2015)

From 2002-2012 Alan was the Chief Executive of The Learning Trust (TLT) which was appointed to deliver all of the statutory education services provided by London Borough of Hackney (LBH). Since 2006 Alan has also been the Corporate Director of Children and Young People’s Services in LBH. In that period education; social work for children; and youth services in Hackney have been transformed and now receive national recognition for their work. Alan has held the post of Director of Education in two London local authorities.

Alan was Chair of the Association of London Directors of Children Services (2007- 2010) and Vice President of the ADCS (2013-2014). He was appointed by the Secretary of State to be a member of the Training and Development Agency for Teachers (TDA) and was a member of the Advisory Group for the Education Funding Agency (EFA).

Alan was asked by the Secretary of State for Education to review the arrangements for Children Social Care in Doncaster (2013) and Birmingham (2014) and has co-authored subsequent reports with Professor Julian Le Grand (LSE). In 2013 Alan was appointed by the Secretary of State as Commissioner for Children Social Care in Doncaster to ensure a new Trust was established to provide these services. The Doncaster Children Services Trust (DCST) becomes operational from September 2014.

In 2011 Alan was awarded a CBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours list for services to education and local government. Educated at the Universities of York and Birmingham and the Institute of Education, he lives in London and has two children. His interests include 17th-century English History, Tour de France, and cinema.

Alan was ADCS President until March 2015.

Appendix 2.1

Mayor Lutfur Rahman

c/o: Mayor’s Office

1st floor, Mulberry Place

5 Clove Crescent

London

E14 2BG

18 March 2015

To Mayor Rahman,

Commissioners response to the Best Value Strategy and Action Plan submitted under Directions dated 17th December 2014

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is required under the Directions dated 17th December 2014 to draw up and agree with the Commissioners, a strategy and action plan to secure the Authority’s compliance with its best value duty and submit this to the Secretary of State.  This note sets out the Commissioners’ response to the Strategy and Plan agreed by the Mayor and Council in March 2015.

We would start by placing on record, that since we arrived in Tower Hamlets, we have been treated with courtesy and consideration. Any Authority having Directions placed upon them faces a challenging time which has been exacerbated by the Mayor and some of his colleagues being distracted by their involvement in an Election Court.

With the one exception noted below, we accept the Strategy and Plan put forward by the Authority. We understand that over the next 6 months each element of the plan will be examined to define measurable outcomes, interim goals and timelines and are pleased that this has been accepted during our discussion.

Direction 3 requires the Authority as a matter of urgency to make suitable permanent appointments to the 3 statutory officer posts. Two of these posts, the Monitoring Officer and the Section 151 Officer, were actively being recruited to when we arrived. We evaluated both the proposed roles and the process and progress made and were content to endorse it and allow both posts to continue through the process. We have participated in the appointment process and are pleased that the two appointments have now been made.

It is helpful to note that we have met the Mayor and the two other group leaders.  Both Labour and Conservative Groups have invited us to meet and address them, but our offers to meet the Cabinet and Tower Hamlets First have yet to be taken up.  In our view this is regrettable as it is important that all Councillors understand our role and what our respective tasks are.

Despite political differences it is the Borough’s elected representatives, working together who need to take the initiative to provide the leadership necessary to more the Authority out of the Direction regime.  This will then provide the framework within which officers are expected to work.

Local Authorities subject to Directions are expected to use the process to drive through change and improvement across the Authority by following the spirit rather than the letter of the Direction. To date, this only appears to be partially true in Tower Hamlets, where a desire to analyse the precise word form of individual Directions and the accompanying Memorandum is in danger of hindering the promotion of the necessary changes.

A number of examples serve to exemplify this:-

* Direction 5 deals with the Disposal of Real Property. The vast majority of our contact with officers on this direction has been spent on clarifying and reconfirming processes and involvement without an apparent understanding by officers as to why this Direction was required in the first instance.  Successful delivery of the actions in this element of the Best Value Plan will depend on a full understanding.

* The proposal to support the Stairway to Heaven memorial has appeared to focus on a form of words that purport to take this proposed donation out of the scope of the Grants and Procurement Directions even though the Council’s own newspaper records this as a donation or grant.

*     The inconclusive discussions on how to define the role of the Head of Paid Service resulting in the Best Value Improvement Plan recording that the Authority will comply with the Direction without supporting detail. We touch on this later in this note.

The above reinforces our conclusion that cultural change at both Member and senior officer levels and their working relationships is fundamental, which will lead to the successful exit from the Direction regime.  In our view, cross party Member involvement in this cultural change programme will do more to address the Secretary of State’s concerns than any other specific action.

However, we also feel it important to place on record the work and support of the Officers who have worked on the Grants programme to bring forward and implement a process which will continue the majority of mainstream grants for an initial period whilst consultation and approval can be completed for a new process for mainstream grants for the longer term. This will provide the opportunity to maintain a viable third sector through a testing period.

Whilst recruitment exercises have resulted in making suitable permanent appointments to positions the holders of which will be designated as two of the required statutory officers, we remain concerned that a similar process urgency has not been applied to the vacancy of Head of Paid Service.

No process to define and implement an open competition to appoint an officer who would then be designated as Head of Paid Service has been proposed by the Authority. In accordance with the Direction, such a recruitment exercise is to be conducted under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, the Commissioners.

The Council approved plan merely states that the Direction will be complied with. In our view, this does not signify either urgency or recognition of the clarification that paragraph 35 of the accompanying explanatory memorandum provides in relation to this matter.

We are aware of a positive move now being proposed for the Mayor and Lead Members to meet on 18 March 2015 to discuss the necessary steps to meet the Direction. However, on the basis of the evidence we have to date we cannot conclude that the Direction can be met, nor can we conclude that the Direction in relation to the Plan can be fulfilled.

The proposed meeting referred to above may provide additional evidence for us to reach a firm conclusion. However, if agreement cannot be reached on both the post and the timetable as a matter of urgency we can only conclude that the Authority will be unable to comply with this aspect of the Direction, which we will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State.

We look forward to working with you over the forthcoming months to oversee successful completion of all the actions programmed so that a successful exit from the Directions regime can be achieved.

Yours sincerely

Sir Ken Knight

Max Caller CBE

Tower Hamlets Commissioners

cc. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Appendix 2.2

16 September 2015

Dear Mayor,

Commissioners response to your letter dated 15 September and the first sixth month update of the Best Value Plan dated 14 September 2015

We wrote to your predecessor Lutfur Rahman on 18th March 2015 setting out our views on the initial submission of London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Best Value Strategy and Action Plan produced in compliance with the Directions dates 17th December 2014.  This note sets out our response to the update to that Plan dated 14th September submitted by you to the Secretary of State in your letter dated 15th September 2015.

It was disappointing, that, due to the failure of the previous leadership of the Council to effectively respond to the original Directions, the Secretary of State found it necessary to issue two further Directions, dated 29th April 2015 and 6th May 2015.

The April Direction dealt with the establishment and appointment to a post to be designated Head of Paid Service. On 17th August Commissioners wrote to you confirming the substantial discharge of the actions required under this Direction. We welcome Mr Tuckley’s appointment and look forward to him working in partnership with you and your colleagues to drive the improvements and changes necessary for the Council to exit the Direction regime.

In March we recorded our view that some parts of the Council had approached the imposition of Directions in a defensive manner rather than using the opportunity provided to drive through the required changes. Those parts of the Council that had embraced the opportunity to improve have continued to make progress but it was evident that in the resistant areas progress only appeared to us to be evident after the Mayoral by-election result had been absorbed. We regret this lost opportunity to move the whole Authority forward. However, we appreciate the efforts that you have gone to in driving the necessary change forward since your election.

In this letter we wish to highlight four specific areas for particular attention

1.                Delivering Outcomes rather than Activity;
2.                Cultural Change;
3.                Election Management; and
4.                Communications.

1. Outcomes

The Best Value process requires a strategy and action plan. We noted in March that it was intended over the ensuing 6 months to examine each element of the submitted plan to define measurable outcomes, interim goals and timelines.  The updated plans submitted to the Secretary of State start the process to achieve this but do not yet contain sufficient evidence that the activity defined is directed towards an appropriate outcome and that the timelines and milestones are not completely defined. We are concerned that without this clarity, embedding the necessary changes will not have occurred and in fact change may only be skin deep. We welcome that you have agreed to Chair the Best Value Board both to achieve the outcome based results that are necessary and the ownership of the process by the Council.

2. Cultural change

We agreed that this programme should be delayed to enable the newly elected Mayor and his Chief Executive to influence its direction. Nevertheless, we note that all organisations display cultural norms, either set by what is seen to be acceptable and expedient by the bottom or led from the top to achieve specific goals. Many of the specific instances of failure to apply good standards of local government practice and procedure, that we have observed, stem from this bottom up culture even if it is ascribed to higher direction. So, for example, poor procurement practice in the past is attributed to the former Mayor’s intervention even if there is no evidence whatever to support this belief.

A fundamental part of effective leadership is for both Members and Senior Officers to model the culture required. Tower Hamlets has missed having good role models who understand the Executive Mayoral system and can lead the organisation forward in an appropriate way. We do not underestimate the challenge that this poses and welcome your commitment to change the culture.

3. Election Management

The two elections in 2015 demonstrated a marked improvement in practice over the 2014 performance. This only came about with substantial additional support, both financial and physical from outside bodies. It will be necessary to identify, learn from and embed the lessons of the improvement to deliver future elections for the resources that funders are prepared to pay. We will assist in this process by working with the new Chief Executive Officer to embed the lessons learned for future elections.

4. Communications

We welcome your approach to reset activity in this area. We entirely support the fundamental external review of the communications activity that you have commissioned. This will lead to all channels of communication being in their appropriate place with properly defined goals. The print element may fulfil part of this strategy provided its context and goals are defined. In our view, the current print vehicle, East End Life was misused in the past to attempt to achieve inappropriate goals. This legacy is hard to shake off but we recognise the contractual constraints dictate the timescale over which change can be achieved. We are pleased to note your instruction for the publication of the weekly newspaper to assume a fortnightly frequency and pleased to see the commitment embodied in the Best Value Action Plan that East End Life will be fully 'code compliant' by March 2016.

Commissioners have valued the more open and honest approach that is now starting to characterise day to day working. We will play our part in building on the improved relationships at Member and Officer levels to help the Borough make progress.

Yours Sincerely

Appendix 2.3

22 March 2016

Dear Mayor,

Commissioners’ response to the Best Value Strategy and Action Plan first 12 month update submitted under Directions dated 17th December 2014

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets is required under Directions dated 17th December 2014 to draw up and agree with Commissioners, a strategy and action plan to secure the Authority’s compliance with its Best Value Duty and submit this to the Secretary of State. The Authority produced its initial plan in March 2015 and provided an update to the Secretary of State in September 2015.

Commissioners responded to the initial plan in our letter dated 18th March 2015 and to the 6 month update on 16th September 2015. We also formally wrote on 17th and 19th August 2015 on elements of the Additional Directions made on 29th April and 6th May 2015.

This letter sets out our response to the first 12 month update contained in your letter dated 17th March 2016 but because many of the issues we raise have been referred to in earlier letters, we have taken the opportunity to review the whole Direction period since the Council entered the Direction regime in December 2014. We have structured this letter to deal with the outstanding issues arising from the additional Directions, the original Directions and an overview on the progress that has been made to date.

We would start by paying tribute to the efforts of some key officers in moving the organisation forward and your commitment and direction in wanting to achieve the goals which will lead the Council out of the Direction regime at the earliest possible time.  This has accelerated since your Chief Executive, Mr. Tuckley, took up post and it is now possible to see and evidence tangible signs of progress.

However, we have made the point in earlier correspondence that parts of the Council have found it hard to accept that things were very badly wrong, despite all its achievements, and that a very different culture and approach is required to embed the changes necessary. It is not sufficient purely to undertake the steps necessary to agree a new process or policy and then record this as a success. Greater consideration is required regarding the outcomes the change is intended to deliver and how to embed and evidence the changes required. We recorded our concerns on this in earlier correspondence and we are pleased to note the very important comments you make in your letter about resistance to accepting that things were wrong in the past.

It is also of concern that Commissioners are still contacted by whistleblowers who do not have the confidence to approach the Council direct to alert it to what appears to be credible evidence of wrongdoing and malpractice. It may be that much of the allegations relate to a previous administration’s activity but it is important that each element is properly dealt with to demonstrate openness and trust. We also note that failure to act on concerns and acquiescence in failing to challenge poor practice needs to be dealt with in addition to dealing with the allegation itself.   Commissioners are considering what steps are necessary to follow these matters through to a conclusion.  

As a consequence of the above, the Commissioners consider that the first period of the Direction regime disappointingly fell far short of the progress that could have reasonably been expected from an Authority that was prepared to acknowledge its failings and resolve to improve. We do not consider that this is due to any lack of commitment by you as the current Executive Mayor or the Council’s Chief Executive. However, it is evident that the previous regime operated in a way which fell well below the standards required in good local government and was not prepared to recognise this, preferring to see Directions as something on the margin of the Authority’s activity. This has contributed to significant lost time and lack of progress which we will comment on in more detail later in this letter. It does, however, draw into sharp focus the need and importance of embedding the proposed cultural change throughout the organisation.

The Additional Directions

As noted earlier, we provided advice to the Secretary of State on the April and May 2015 Directions in our letters dated 17th and 19th August 2015. Commissioners considered that the progress that had been made following your election made it possible to support allowing these Directions to lapse as part of a staged reduction in intervention powers. Nevertheless, we highlighted two key outstanding issues which you acknowledge in your letter

1 Target Setting, Appraisal and delegation of powers to the Chief Executive

The report which established the post of Chief Executive also approved a process by which an all-party group would set targets for and appraise the performance of the Chief Executive in line with good practice in local government. A consequence of that target setting would be the opportunity for you to delegate appropriate powers linked to the targets set and the role defined as previously discussed.

Your letter, dated 14th March 2016 to Mr. Caller (copy attached), is the first intimation that Commissioners have received of the programme for the finalisation of initial targets for Mr. Tuckley which we are pleased to see although it is also good practice to set the targets as part of a probationary assessment. However, we note that you have yet to commit to either the principle of delegation of specific powers to the Chief Executive or a timetable for doing so. Appropriate powers for the LB Tower Hamlets Chief Executive are, in our view, a fundamental change marking the difference between your administration and that of your predecessor which led to the intervention by the Secretary of State. We will wish to follow both these issues through to a satisfactory conclusion.

2 Boishakhi Mela

The approach the Council has taken in dealing with the issues relating to this event provide clear evidence that some parts of the Council have yet to set out on the Best Value improvement journey despite the leadership shown. We have previously noted that we had found it necessary to use the wide ranging powers included in the Direction dated 6th May 2015 only once, when we instructed that no future booking for the use of Council facilities or any grant application for future funding be approved for the Mela until all the issues arising from the audit reports had been satisfactorily resolved.

The outcome of this instruction was only reported to Commissioners at our public Decision Making meeting on 8th March 2016, despite the completed audit review being available to the Council on 18th November 2015 and the Independent Panel meeting taking place on 26th November 2015. Both of these reports confirmed that the issues relating to financial management and probity that had been reported over previous years were still unresolved, did not meet the Council’s standards and there was no commitment to address them. Despite this evidence being documented in public, officers were still reporting that the Council had acted upon and resolved these issues and that the Council should be free to permit the event to take place on Council controlled land.

We found it necessary to require that resolution of the audit issues be incorporated into the contractual requirements to be satisfied before this important community event takes place.

December 2014 Directions

Annex B

Annex B Directions encompassed those activities where the powers were removed in part or in whole from the Council’s control.

Grants

The Direction provides for all powers relating to the determination of any form of grant other than setting the overall cash budget to be removed from the Council's control and vested in the Commissioners who, in effect, become the Council for all such decisions.

We have previously recorded the progress made in establishing a new approach for the Mainstream Grants programme, regularising the relationship with the third sector and its umbrella body and better managing performance and outputs on a more self-regulated basis.

We also noted the delays and difficulties in ensuring that all parts of the Council understood and complied with the scope of the Direction. We believe that this has now been satisfactorily achieved. Commissioners have noted the steps being promoted to establish a coherent voluntary sector strategy and the linkages with activity being undertaken under the property strand of Directions.

We note the desire to recognise the value of community benefit provided by Third Sector Bodies in Council owned buildings, but we remain concerned that it will prove very difficult to embed any new process in a fair, objective and transparent way.  We have yet to see any analysis as to how such a regime might impact on the allocation of individual grants. At this stage there is a potential risk that Commissioners will be unable to endorse the approach promoted by the Council as it will not satisfactorily discharge its Best Value duty.

Of significant importance is the delay in the Council establishing a cross party mechanism to provide Commissioners with advice on the allocation of grants to individual organisations as required by Clause 9 of the Directions. Commissioners first requested this be established in December 2014 as part of the initial series of meetings when the Directions were published. We have continued to comment on the failure to comply with this element of the Directions at regular intervals.

We endorsed a proposed approach identified by yourself soon after your election but it is only now that a working approach under the auspices of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be formally proposed to Commissioners and the Council, 18 months after it was first requested and ten months since you identified your preferred approach which we endorsed. It will be necessary for the process to become operational before the Council will have established a cycle which provides the required analysis and commentary on the process. Only at that point will Commissioners be able to dispense with their ad-hoc arrangement of inviting representatives of each group to speak on any item on our agenda at the Commissioners' Decision Making Meetings in public and move to offering co-opted place(s) to the administration to join us in taking decisions. It will then be possible to gather the evidence which will allow us to recommend to the Secretary of State a variation of the Annex B Direction, possibly by returning powers to the Council subject to some oversight or safeguards.

Elections

Commissioners noted significant improvement in the administration of elections as part of their observation of the two electoral events in 2015. Many of the concerns that had been aired in respect of previous elections had been addressed and the course seemed set for the further improvements that are still required. Nevertheless, this improvement had only been achieved by the deployment of significant additional resource, professionally, from partner agencies and in financial terms which were far above those normally deployed on elections elsewhere in London.

As an example, the Metropolitan Police Service deployed officers at every polling station throughout the hours of poll for the Parliamentary elections and Mayoral By-election. This level of activity was unprecedented in recent times and was supported by central funds. The challenge facing the Council and its Returning Officer is to deliver a fair and safe electoral event within more normal allocations of resources, embedding all the lessons learned and continue to improve practice and process.

Commissioners had identified to the Mayor the requirement for a further iteration of the Election plan in September 2015. We are pleased to note that the General Purposes Committee received a report on 16th March 2016 on the programme and issues and that we are now being briefed on detailed plans to meet the considerable challenge of two electoral events in the next few months.

Annex A Directions

Appointment of Statutory Officers

The three Statutory Officers are now in place on a permanent basis. Commissioners have not been requested to exercise their powers under Direction A4. However it is still necessary to address the issues identified above in relation to target setting, appraisal and delegation of powers to the Chief Executive so as to provide for an acceptable process of appraisal which runs from top to bottom of the organisation.

Property

Commissioners acknowledge that many of the preparatory steps have been taken which will lead to a consideration of a comprehensive asset strategy. We have already identified our concerns about the element relating to the use and occupation of community buildings but will consider the proposals as they come forward on their merits and in the light of the evidence, both existing and proposed, to be gathered to support the intended approach.

Commissioners recognise that the next stage in the delivery of this element of the Best Value Strategy is crucial. Agreeing a strategy is not an end in itself, it is the outcomes that the strategy is designed to deliver that will be scrutinised in most depth alongside the way in which achievement will be evidenced. The next iteration of this element of the action plan will enable Commissioners to advise the Secretary of State whether the current controls on disposals can be relaxed.

Publicity

For most of the time since entering the Direction regime, the Council has attempted to justify continuing with the pre-existing communications approach which used East End Life as its prime element knowing it was not code compliant.

Only after your intervention and consideration of a helpful report from the Local Government Association did the Council recognise that to discharge its Best Value Duty required a comprehensive review of their communications activity, both internal and external, together with considering the way in which the residents and partners wanted to interact with the Council. This is a prime example of refusing to recognise the need for change at the outset. However, we were pleased to assist you and the Council by extending the period for publications to be fully Code compliant until the Annual meeting of Council this year.

The challenge now is to establish a complete revision of this element of the Best Value strategy and action plan and agree it with the Commissioners.  Commissioners will be particularly looking for outcome measures to support the goals identified and the means by which the outcomes will be evidenced. Appendix 2 to your letter, which is recognised as a work in progress had not been discussed and agreed with Commissioners before submission to the Secretary of State as a component of your Best Value Action Plan as required by the Directions so we will review it and comment in due course.

Procurement and Contracts

The Council has made steady progress in delivering its goals in this element of the plan. Commissioners are now identifying and requesting the evidence which will provide the basis on which we can recommend to the Secretary of State that this element of the Directions has been discharged. We have noted the efforts of those involved to bring order and good governance to an unacceptable situation when we started and which was well below that expected in Local Government.

Organisational Culture

From the outset Commissioners believed that this strand of activity was the key to successful exit from the Directions regime. No amount of process and policy activity will be effective unless the underlying culture and values of the organisation, at both Member and Officer level, support and enforce understanding and compliance because it is the right thing to do. The position when we arrived of a secretive, inward-looking organisation that turned a blind eye to dubious practice would never lead to success.

Commissioners have noted many pleasing initiatives and would draw particular attention to the work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Transparency Commission report and the diagnostic work undertaken by Solace through a series of workshops. The presentation to officers, attached to your letter helpfully sets out the approach.

Commissioners believe that the above work should now be drawn together into a single programme of activity which should be championed by you and your Chief Executive working together with the support of other groups. A coherent plan, which finds ways to realistically and honestly look at where the Authority was and what needs to be rooted out, together with the journey that is still to be undertaken is, in Commissioners view the single most important component for success. The challenge that this poses, and the time it will take should not be underestimated.

Conclusion

Tower Hamlets has found it difficult to face up to the need to change in a comprehensive and coherent way. As a consequence much time has been lost in moving towards satisfying the purpose behind the Directions.

In our view, it is possible to catch up some of the time lost, however a relentless focus on outcomes and evidence will be required to enable Commissioners to advise the Secretary of State that the need for Directions has passed.  It is important not to be overly optimistic about the time required both to do what is necessary and to evidence the embedding of change.  Unless this is achieved, it will put at risk exit from the Direction regime. 

The recent progress that has been made should make it possible to reduce the number of Commissioners over the coming period only if the messages contained in this letter are accepted and acted upon.

Yours Sincerely

APPENDIX 3

1.              INTRODUCTION

1.1              For a number of years, elections in Tower Hamlets have presented challenges both in terms of logistics and ensuring integrity, arising from allegations of fraud by candidates or their agents; and the conduct of campaigners during the campaign, at polling stations and at the count.  Prior to 2014 cases of fraud had not been substantiated but the complaints and allegations were nevertheless damaging to the confidence that some electors, candidates and political parties had in the electoral process locally.

1.2              Elections took place in Tower Hamlets during May and June 2015 as follows:-

7th May 2015:              UK Parliamentary General Election, constituencies of Bethnal Green & Bow and Poplar & Limehouse. 

11th June 2015:              Tower Hamlets Mayoral election and Stepney Green Ward Council by-election.

1.3              The planning and delivery of the 7th May elections drew on a range of best practice, experience and lessons learnt at previous elections in the borough.  A number of initiatives were developed jointly by the Returning Officer and the partner agencies involved in delivering the events to ensure a free and fair contest, efficient management 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. 

1.4              As a result of this work, the elections in Tower Hamlets in May and June 2015 were delivered successfully and without any challenge to the outcome.  The arrangements in place at each of the elections, particularly in relation to the management of the polling stations and the count, have attracted positive feedback from a number of sources and favourable comparisons with previous electoral contests in the borough.

1.5              The Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer for Tower Hamlets has reviewed the delivery of the 2015 elections in the borough in consultation with the partner agencies that were involved in delivering or overseeing those elections, including the Metropolitan Police (both Tower Hamlets Police and the Special Enquiry Team at Scotland Yard), the Electoral Commission, the DCLG Commissioners and their appointed representative Mr Barry Quirk.  A joint report has been prepared in order to provide a legacy of best practice recommendations for future elections in Tower Hamlets and elsewhere. 

1.6              A copy of the full report is attached for your information.  During the course of the review, the Returning Officer and the partner agencies identified a number of areas in which they considered that the current legislative framework governing elections could have impeded their efforts to ensure an efficient, free and fair election or to deal quickly with issues or allegations raised.  These are particularly relevant to the work of the Electoral Fraud Review and are therefore highlighted below and submitted as recommendations for your consideration.

2.              HISTORICAL CONTEXT               

2.1              As stated above, there have been a number of challenges arising from elections in Tower Hamlets in recent years, to which the responsible authorities have responded. 

Elections 2012

2.2              Following the London Mayor and London Assembly elections in May 2012 and two Council ward by-elections in April and May of that year, the Electoral Commission published a report[4] which found that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had recorded and investigated a total of 64 cases involving 154 separate allegations of electoral fraud in relation to the 2012 elections in Tower Hamlets. 

2.3              In only three of those cases (involving five allegations) did the MPS find there was evidence to suggest that an offence may have been committed, and in each of those there was insufficient evidence to prove an offence or identify a suspect, so no further action was able to be taken.

2.4              The Electoral Commission report nevertheless highlighted some key issues relating to cases of alleged electoral fraud and made a number of recommendations to the Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer, the MPS and elected representatives, political parties, candidates and campaigners for actions to improve integrity and confidence for future elections in Tower Hamlets, particularly the need for some significant changes in the approach to reporting and investigating allegations.

              Elections 2014

2.5              In response to these recommendations, the preparations for the combined European Parliamentary, Tower Hamlets Mayor and Council elections on 22nd May 2014 featured a much closer working partnership between the Returning Officer and the Metropolitan Police both locally and at Scotland Yard, and a range of initiatives were introduced to ensure the integrity of the electoral register and the elections; improve communications and build confidence.  These measures included, and were summarised in, the Tower Hamlets Local Protocol that all parties and candidates standing in the elections were invited to sign.   

2.6              In the event, the May 2014 combined elections in Tower Hamlets gave rise to a total of 164 allegations of electoral fraud and malpractice which were investigated by the Metropolitan Police Special Enquiry Team.  80% of these allegations were made by rival candidates or their agents.  The majority of the remainder were received from members of the public in response to an appeal by the Returning Officer after the election for anyone who had witnessed problems at a polling station to come forward. 

2.7              Following the Police investigations, two individuals were cautioned (one for Malicious Communication and one for Personation) and one further individual is awaiting trial for a candidate nomination offence. 

2.8              The combined verification and count for the May 2014 elections was a protracted affair which attracted criticism and was the subject of a report by the Electoral Commission[5].  The report recommended that the Returning Officer should take a number of actions including considering a wider range of potential count venues for future elections, including if necessary venues outside the borough. 

2.9              The election of Mayor Lutfur Rahman on 22nd May 2014 was subsequently successfully challenged in the election court due to corrupt and illegal practices that were found to have been committed by the elected candidate and his agents.  The petitioners named the Returning Officer as second respondent to the election petition but on the first day of the trial they withdrew all allegations of wrongdoing against the Returning Officer and his staff and in his judgement issued on 23rd April 2015, Richard Mawrey QC (presiding at the Election Court) exonerated the Returning Officer. 

2.10              The election court judgement identified a number of specific cases of alleged false registration and other issues that have been followed up by the Returning Officer and have helped to develop the anti-fraud measures used in 2015.  The MPS Special Enquiry Team (SET), which is the Single Point of Contact for elections and the electoral process within the MPS, and sits within the SCO1 Homicide and Major Crime Command, identified 5 offences from 2014 in the Election Court judgement not previously reported to police.  In addition 47 offences that had previously been reported to police had the potential for fresh evidence to be considered, making a total of 52 offences to be reviewed/(re)investigated. 

3.              THE ELECTIONS IN TOWER HAMLETS IN MAY AND JUNE 2015

3.1              The UK Parliamentary General Election took place on 7th May 2015.  In Tower

Hamlets the constituencies of Bethnal Green & Bow and Poplar & Limehouse were contested.  On 23rd April 2015 a judgment of the Election Court avoided the Tower Hamlets Mayoral election of May 2014 and disqualified from office the former Mayor and a Councillor for Stepney Green Ward.  As a result, a fresh Mayoral election and a ward by-election were held on 11th June 2015.       

The DCLG Commissioners 

3.2              On 17th December 2014 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued Directions to Tower Hamlets Council to secure the authority’s compliance with Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999.  The Directions provided that certain specified functions of the authority would be exercised until 31 March 2017 by Commissioners nominated by the Secretary of State.  Amongst the specified functions were the functions under section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the appointment or dismissal of any person to the statutory offices of Electoral Registration Officer or Returning Officer for local elections.

3.3              The Commissioners did not exercise their power to make an appointment or dismissal but they monitored closely the work undertaken in preparation for the May 2015 elections and also appointed Mr Barry Quirk, Chief Executive of Lewisham Council, to provide management support and oversight to the Returning Officer in the planning and delivery of those elections.  An Elections Best Value Action Plan, focussing primarily on the delivery of the elections in May and June 2015, was prepared by the Returning Officer and subject to regular reporting to the Commissioners as part of their wider monitoring work to ensure that the Council was meeting its Best Value duty. 

Assessment of the May/June 2015 elections and lessons learnt

3.4              The management and implementation of the elections incorporated a number of significant improvements over previous practice in Tower Hamlets as set out below. Strengthened arrangements were put in place for the UK Parliamentary Elections on 7th May, particularly around ensuring good order at the polling stations, integrity of the electoral process and efficiency of the count.  These arrangements were in turn maintained and further improved for the Mayoral election on 11th June.

3.5              At both elections positive feedback was received from candidates, agents and others on the improvements introduced and complaints to the Returning Officer and the Metropolitan Police were significantly reduced compared with 2012 or 2014.  In relation to the 2015 elections, the MPS Special Enquiry Team received the following numbers of allegations of fraud and malpractice:-

• In connection with the UK Parliamentary General Election on 7th May - 10 allegations.
• In connection with the Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election on 11th June – 48 allegations.  Of these 35 were made by rival candidates or their agents, 15 by one individual. 

3.6              None of the 2015 allegations have resulted in any criminal case disposal to date. 

4.              RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1              The joint report of the Returning Officer and the partner agencies considers in turn each element of the planning and delivery of the 2015 elections and summarises the lessons learned and actions taken in relation to each specific area.

4.2              In relation to the broader issues that give rise to recommendations for consideration by the UK Government, these are highlighted below.

              Registration

4.3              The online Individual Electoral Registration (IER) process presented some difficulties as a number of online applicants had received a reference code which they took to be confirmation of their registration, when in fact it was simply confirmation of receipt of their application.  In some cases additional evidence was required and the resident was found not to be registered.

              Integrity measures and the legal framework

4.4              The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has advised that in both 2014 and 2015 there were instances of allegations being made against individuals by political rivals with no evidence to back them up.  On occasion there is no named informant for the police to interview or the person named is unwilling to follow the matter up.  As well as being a waste of police time such allegations can, if they receive publicity, unjustifiably damage public confidence in the electoral process.  Even where specific information was provided, including in relation to some matters that were subsequently raised again in the Election Court, the Crown Prosecution Service found in many cases that the evidence presented did not meet the test to allow a prosecution. 

4.5              Many allegations are the result of a misunderstanding of what is an offence.  Whilst not being an offence, some actions may represent a breach of the Electoral Commission’s Code of Conduct.    Although it may not be appropriate or practicable for alleged breaches of the Code to be referred to the Commission or subject to any sanction, this can be a problem particularly where an independent candidate does not have a party machinery to which code violations can be referred. 

4.6              Potentially instances of fraudulent registration can be brought to light as a result of an investigation of another matter, for example housing benefit or council tax fraud.  Relevant information held by the local authority’s Audit team and other investigatory functions should be routinely shared with the Returning Officer.         

4.7              The introduction of IER has without doubt increased the security and accuracy of the electoral register.  The system requires each elector to register individually and to provide his/her date of birth and National Insurance Number (NINO) which are checked against Department of Work and Pensions records.  However, IER relies on the security of the NINO in the first instance, and does not necessarily provide a firm link to a particular address.  Further measures are required to improve the process, especially where an elector has more than one address

The nominations process

4.8              It can occur that there are doubts about the accuracy of information contained in a candidate’s nomination papers.   The Returning Officer’s powers in this regard are very limited.  The Electoral Commission has previously recommended that the Returning Officer should have express powers to reject a sham nomination, and that the law should set out the powers and duties of a Returning Officer for all elections.   The Metropolitan Police Service have suggested that there could usefully be changes to the nomination form template to provide more detail and clarity – including guidance notes in layman’s terms on what is required and the consequences of false information (e.g. using terms such as ‘home’ address, giving specifics of ineligibility criteria and asking the candidate to confirm that none apply to him/her).

4.9              One of the election agents at the 2015 Mayoral election has proposed that any documents (e.g. nomination registers, absent vote lists) provided to prospective candidates before the election should be returned after the poll or a fine imposed. Electronic information should be provided with a time-limited password.

4.10              The Returning Officer notes that the Electoral Commission has previously advised that the complexity of electoral law can produce obstacles & delays in the investigation of electoral offences; and recommended that this should be  addressed, e.g. by dispensing with the division between corrupt and illegal practices, simplifying the offence of bribery and scrapping the separate offence of treating.  There is also some ambiguity regarding the timing of electoral offences. 

4.11              The Returning Officer endorses these points and would add that the relatively large number of allegations received of relatively minor breaches of the ‘imprint’ rules can have the effect of (i) inflating the number of allegations to be investigated and (ii) diverting resources from potentially more serious matters.

              Postal voting

4.12              The Local Protocol that was published by the Returning Officer for the 2015 elections in Tower Hamlets to complement the Electoral Commission’s Code of Conduct for Campaigners included a number of additional voluntary provisions that candidates and parties standing at the election were asked to sign up to.  In view of previous allegations in the borough of possible postal voting fraud and to build confidence in the process, one of these provisions was an undertaking that canvassers or campaigners would not handle an elector’s completed postal vote application.  The integrity measures at the election would be strengthened if a statutory provision could be introduced to this effect.

4.13              The rejection rate for personal identifiers (mostly signature mismatch) at the May Parliamentary General Election was c.8% and at the June Mayoral Election c. 7%.  This is slightly lower than at previous elections in Tower Hamlets but still higher than the national average. 

              Polling stations

4.14              Extensive measures were taken by the Returning Officer and the Metropolitan Police Service as described in the legacy report to ensure the integrity of the 2015 elections at the polling stations and address allegations made at previous elections of elections being intimidated or placed under undue influence when casting their vote.  These proved successful. 

4.15              Five allegations of potential personation were received in total after the two election days which were passed to the Police for investigation.  Each of the agencies involved in delivering the elections has made the point that requiring electors to produce some proof of identity at the polling station would substantially address the risk of personation, and this is recommended to the UK Government for consideration.

Challenging election results

4.16              In the light of experience of the Election Petition and subsequent court judgement in connection with the 2014 Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election, the Returning Officer and partner agencies have a number of recommendations for review of the process for challenging election results.      

4.17              The Statutory Timetable including the late registration deadline presents a serious challenge in relation to the investigation and resolution of complaints pre-election; and there are a number of factors that work against the swift investigation and prosecution of offenders.

4.18              The Electoral Commission has previously recommended that challenges should be simpler, more modern and follow less formal rules of procedure; that Returning Officers should have powers to bring petitions; and that the issue of a public interest petitioner should be investigated.

4.19              The Metropolitan Police Service Special Enquiry Team has told this review that they would favour a complete review of the election petition process, potentially bringing the process to a criminal standard of proof and reducing the costs to petitioners which can currently be prohibitive. 

5.              CONCLUDING REMARKS

5.1              The Returning Officer and the partner agencies trust that the recommendations above will assist the Electoral Fraud Review in its work.  We would be happy to provide further information that may be required, and look forward to reading the Review’s recommendations to Government on this important matter in due course.

Yours sincerely,

John Williams,

Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets

TOWER HAMLETS ELECTIONS 2015 -

LEGACY REPORT

A joint report of the Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets and

the partner agencies involving in delivering and overseeing the elections

1.              INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1              Elections took place in Tower Hamlets during May and June 2015 as follows:-

7th May 2015:              UK Parliamentary General Election, constituencies of Bethnal Green & Bow and Poplar & Limehouse. 

11th June 2015:              Tower Hamlets Mayoral election and Stepney Green Ward Council by-election.

1.2              The planning and delivery of the 7th May elections drew on a range of best practice, experience and lessons learnt at previous elections in the borough.  A number of initiatives were developed jointly by the Returning Officer and the partner agencies involved in delivering the events to ensure a free and fair contest, efficient management of the elections and an orderly poll and count in each case. 

1.3              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. 

1.4              As a result of this work, the elections in Tower Hamlets in May and June 2015 were delivered successfully and without any challenge to the outcome.  The arrangements in place at each of the elections, particularly in relation to the management of the polling stations and the count, have attracted positive feedback from a number of sources and favourable comparisons with previous electoral contests in the borough.

              A legacy for Tower Hamlets

1.5              A new Chief Executive will take up post with Tower Hamlets Council in October 2015, who will become the Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer for the borough.  The purpose of this report is to review each aspect of the delivery of the May and June 2015 elections and issues arising from the earlier Election Court judgement; and to record lessons, measures that were particularly successful and areas where further improvement is still required, in order to provide a legacy for future elections. 

              Recommendations for wider consideration

1.6              It is considered that many of the measures introduced in Tower Hamlets in recent years will be of interest also to those with responsibility for delivering elections elsewhere, particularly in areas which have experienced similar issues to those locally.  This report therefore identifies a number of best practice recommendations of more general application, for the consideration of Returning Officers, Police forces and partner agencies across the UK.

              The Electoral Fraud Review and the wider legislative framework

1.7              Finally, the review has identified a number of areas in which the Returning Officer and partner agencies consider that the current legislative framework governing elections could have impeded their efforts to ensure an efficient, free and fair election or to deal quickly with issues or allegations raised.  The Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of electoral law.  In addition the Rt. Hon Eric Pickles MP, in his capacity as UK Government Anti-Corruption Champion, is leading an Electoral Fraud Review and has issued a call for evidence in connection with that review with a deadline of 8th October 2015.  This report therefore also makes recommendations for consideration of possible changes to the law in a number of areas and these will be submitted as evidence to that review. 

1.8              A summary of all of the recommendations made, by category and in bullet point form, is set out at Appendix A.

              Preparation of the report

1.9              This report has been prepared in discussion between the Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer and the partner agencies that were involved in delivering or overseeing the 2015 elections locally, including the Metropolitan Police (both Tower Hamlets Police and the Special Enquiry Team at Scotland Yard), the Electoral Commission, the DCLG Commissioners and their appointed representative Mr Barry Quirk. 

1.10              The Returning Officer has also in the normal way consulted the Election Agents of candidates at the 2015 elections for their feedback on how the elections were conducted and responses received have been incorporated into this report. 

1.11              The General Purposes Committee of Tower Hamlets Council has responsibility on behalf of the Council for certain functions in relation to electoral matters.  The Committee received a presentation from the Returning Officer on 24th September 2015 and were invited to comment on the draft report.  

2.              CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

2.1              For a number of years, elections in Tower Hamlets have presented challenges both in terms of logistics and ensuring integrity, arising from allegations of fraud by candidates or their agents; and the conduct of campaigners during the campaign, at polling stations and at the count.  Prior to 2014 cases of fraud had not been substantiated but the complaints and allegations were nevertheless damaging to the confidence that some electors, candidates and political parties had in the electoral process locally.

              Elections 2012

2.2              Following the London Mayor and London Assembly elections in May 2012 and two Council ward by-elections in April and May of that year, the Electoral Commission published a report[6] which found that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had recorded and investigated a total of 64 cases involving 154 separate allegations of electoral fraud in relation to the 2012 elections in Tower Hamlets. 

2.3              In only three of those cases (involving five allegations) did the MPS find there was evidence to suggest that an offence may have been committed, and in each of those there was insufficient evidence to prove an offence or identify a suspect, so no further action was able to be taken.

2.4              The Electoral Commission report nevertheless highlighted some key issues relating to cases of alleged electoral fraud and made a number of recommendations to the Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer, the MPS and elected representatives, political parties, candidates and campaigners for actions to improve integrity and confidence for future elections in Tower Hamlets, particularly the need for some significant changes in the approach to reporting and investigating allegations in future.

              Elections 2014

2.5              In response to these recommendations, the preparations for the combined European Parliamentary, Tower Hamlets Mayor and Council elections on 22nd May 2014 featured a much closer working partnership between the Returning Officer and the Metropolitan Police both locally and at Scotland Yard, and a range of initiatives were introduced to ensure the integrity of the electoral register and the elections; improve communications and build confidence.  These measures included, and were summarised in, the Tower Hamlets Local Protocol that all parties and candidates standing in the elections were invited to sign.   

2.6              In the event, the May 2014 combined elections in Tower Hamlets gave rise to a total of 164 allegations of electoral fraud and malpractice which were investigated by the Metropolitan Police Special Enquiry Team.  80% of these allegations were made by rival candidates or their agents.  The majority of the remainder were received from members of the public in response to an appeal by the Returning Officer after the election for anyone who had witnessed problems at a polling station to come forward. 

2.7              Following the Police investigations, two individuals were cautioned (one for Malicious Communication and one for Personation) and one further individual is awaiting trial for a candidate nomination offence. 

2.8              The combined verification and count for the May 2014 elections was a protracted affair which attracted criticism and was the subject of a report by the Electoral Commission[7].  The report recommended that the Returning Officer should take a number of actions including considering a wider range of potential count venues for future elections, including if necessary venues outside the borough. 

2.9              The election of Mayor Lutfur Rahman on 22nd May 2014 was subsequently successfully challenged in the election court due to corrupt and illegal practices that were found to have been committed by the elected candidate and his agents.  The petitioners named the Returning Officer as second respondent to the election petition but on the first day of the trial they withdrew all allegations of wrongdoing against the Returning Officer and his staff and in his judgement issued on 23rd April 2015, Richard Mawrey QC (presiding at the Election Court) exonerated the Returning Officer. 

2.10              The election court judgement identified a number of specific cases of alleged false registration and other issues that have been followed up by the Returning Officer and have helped to develop the anti-fraud measures used in 2015.  The MPS Special Enquiry Team (SET), which is the Single Point of Contact for elections and the electoral process within the MPS, and sits within the SCO1 Homicide and Major Crime Command, identified 5 offences from 2014 in the Election Court judgement not previously reported to police.  In addition 47 offences that had previously been reported to police had the potential for fresh evidence to be considered, making a total of 52 offences to be reviewed/(re)investigated. 

3.              THE ELECTIONS IN TOWER HAMLETS IN MAY AND JUNE 2015

3.1              The UK Parliamentary General Election took place on 7th May 2015.  In Tower

Hamlets the constituencies of Bethnal Green & Bow and Poplar & Limehouse were contested.

3.2              As referred to above, on 23rd April 2015 a judgment of the Election Court avoided the Tower Hamlets Mayoral election of May 2014 and disqualified from office the former Mayor and a Councillor for Stepney Green Ward.  As a result, a fresh Mayoral election and a ward by-election were held on 11th June 2015, just five weeks after the UK Parliamentary General Election.       

3.3              Whilst the contingency planning work for the UK Parliamentary General Election took into account from the beginning the possibility that following the Election Court judgement there could be a need for a Mayoral election either combined on the same date or shortly before or after the UKPGE, the planning, management and implementation of two major elections in a five week period represented a major challenge for the Electoral Services team and all staff involved, and it is a tribute to those staff that the elections were delivered successfully and with significant improvements over the May 2014 polls in all areas.

Aims and objectives

3.4              The objectives of the Acting Returning Officer and the joint planning team for the May 2015 elections were:-

• To have in place all necessary measures to ensure that the election was delivered fully in accordance with the law;
• To draw on lessons learned at the May 2014 and previous elections, on Electoral Commission recommendations and guidance, and on best practice elsewhere; 
• To ensure that the electoral register was as accurate as possible, that the election was free and fair and that every elector was able to cast his or her vote freely and without interference or intimidation;
• To ensure that any allegations made during the election period were properly and efficiently investigated;
• That the declared results of the elections truly reflected the will of the electors who voted; and
• That those results were accepted by all concerned to be accurate and that there was no subsequent challenge or election petition.

The DCLG Commissioners 

3.5              On 17th December 2014 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government issued Directions to Tower Hamlets Council to secure the authority’s compliance with Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999.  The Directions provided that certain specified functions of the authority would be exercised until 31 March 2017 by Commissioners nominated by the Secretary of State.  Amongst the specified functions were the functions under section 112 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the appointment or dismissal of any person to the statutory offices of Electoral Registration Officer or Returning Officer for local elections (paragraph 4 of Annex B to the Directions).

3.6              The Commissioners did not exercise their power to make an appointment or dismissal but they monitored closely the work undertaken in preparation for the May 2015 elections and also appointed Mr Barry Quirk, Chief Executive of Lewisham Council, to provide management support and oversight to the Returning Officer in the planning and delivery of those elections.  An Elections Best Value Action Plan, focussing primarily on the delivery of the elections in May and June 2015, was prepared by the Returning Officer and subject to regular reporting to the Commissioners as part of their wider monitoring work to ensure that the Council was meeting its Best Value duty. 

Assessment of the May/June 2015 elections and lessons learnt

3.7              The management and implementation of the elections incorporated a number of significant improvements over previous practice in Tower Hamlets as set out below. Strengthened arrangements were put in place for the UK Parliamentary Elections on 7th May, particularly around ensuring good order at the polling stations, integrity of the electoral process and efficiency of the count.  These arrangements were in turn maintained and further improved for the Mayoral election on 11th June.

3.8              At both elections positive feedback was received from candidates, agents and others on the improvements introduced and complaints to the Returning Officer and the Metropolitan Police were significantly reduced compared with 2012 or 2014.  In relation to the 2015 elections, the MPS Special Enquiry Team received the following numbers of allegations of fraud and malpractice:-

• In connection with the UK Parliamentary General Election on 7th May - 10 allegations.
• In connection with the Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election on 11th June – 48 allegations.  Of these 35 were made by rival candidates or their agents, 15 by one individual. 

3.9              None of the 2015 allegations have resulted in any criminal case disposal to date.  The following paragraphs summarise some of the lessons learned and actions taken in relation to specific areas of the electoral process.

4.              JOINT WORKING

4.1              The Returning Officer worked jointly with partner agencies to deliver the successful elections.  A Joint Election Planning Group met fortnightly from January 2015 to plan the 7th May event, including representatives of all relevant Council services, the Metropolitan Police (Tower Hamlets and the SET), the Electoral Commission, DCLG Commissioners and Barry Quirk.

4.2              Risks, contingencies, milestones and key actions were updated regularly until election day.  All pre-election milestones were completed and the Electoral Commission’s requirements met.  The Commission has subsequently commented favourably on the close liaison and planning between the Returning Officer and the Police. 

4.3              Management expertise and capacity was enhanced through the procurement of an experienced external resource as consultant to oversee key aspects of the plans including staff training and co-ordination of the verification/count.

4.4              Following the UK Parliamentary General Election on 7th May, the planning arrangements were reviewed and a formal Silver Command Group established, chaired by Tower Hamlets Police ‘Silver’, to coordinate security planning for the Mayoral election on 11th June and support the Returning Officer in the planning and implementation process.  A dedicated event manager was identified for the count, who attended the Silver Command and other planning meetings.

5.              REGISTRATION

5.1              As is usual in the run up to an election, the Electoral Services Team were very busy in the weeks prior to 7th May and 11th June 2015.  Over 10,000 alterations (deletions, additions and amendments) were made to the register in the two months prior to the deadlines. In addition hundreds of telephone queries were received and responded to, and all late applications were checked for additional supporting information to confirm identity. 

5.2              The team coped well but on occasion backlogs of telephone enquiries developed which required return calls.  The need to provide constant telephone cover for registration work meant that some election duties had to be undertaken outside office hours, leading to additional working time for staff.  For the 11th June elections, eight additional council staff temporarily joined the team and were added to the ‘hunt group’ to answer enquiries from the public and deal with voicemail messages.  This proved to be successful.  The incoming Returning Officer should seek to agree with the Council’s Corporate Management Team a similar arrangement at future elections, or negotiate an increased role for the Contact Centre in handling routine enquiries.    

5.3              The online Individual Electoral Registration (IER) process presented some difficulties as a number of online applicants had received a reference code which they took to be confirmation of their registration, when in fact it was simply confirmation of receipt of their application.  In some cases additional evidence was required and the resident was found not to be registered.

5.4              In other cases at the Parliamentary General Election, overseas electors contacted the office to say that they had not received their postal ballot papers – on investigation it transpired that they assumed they were awarded a postal vote at the time of requesting an form when registering online and were found not to have completed an application form or requested to vote by post.  Late applications from overseas electors to register did not allow enough time to for the office process late postal vote applications and send the pots vote pack abroad.   The electoral services team have subsequently sent postal vote applications to 646 overseas electors.

It is recommended that the incoming Returning Officer should consider undertaking additional and earlier communications activity at future elections to provide information to electors – including overseas electors on the process for applications for registration and postal votes; and the timescales for issue and return of postal vote – including a suggestion that overseas electors may wish to apply instead for a proxy vote where necessary.

5.5              Immediately prior to the UK Parliamentary General Election, media activity occurred in relation to a residential building that had been decanted for redevelopment but to which it was claimed postal voting packs had been sent.  The number of packs was small and no evidence was found of any fraud, but one of the Election Agents has proposed that all Housing Providers should be under a duty to inform the Returning Officer of any empty or demolished buildings in their ownership. 

6.              INTEGRITY MEASURES AND THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

6.1              A range of measures were introduced by the Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer to ensure the integrity of the 2015 elections, including:-

•         A special canvass involving personal visits by the Electoral Registration Officer’s staff to all addresses where 6 or more electors were registered, to check the accuracy of the register.  In total approximately 3,500 properties were visited during the special canvass.   

•         Additional supporting information was required as proof of residency from all late applications to register

•         Confirmation letters with the current register entry was sent to all addresses

•         The Electoral Registration Officer reviewed fortnightly the list of postal votes being sent to any address other than that at which the elector is registered to vote.  Any concerns to be investigated, including any address to which more than two postal votes were being redirected.

•         Written guidance (in English and Bengali, supplemented by illustrations), was included in postal packs to emphasise the secrecy of the ballot and the need to ensure that no other person is permitted to interfere in the voting process.

•         Polling station staff were not permitted to advise electors or address each other or any other person in any language other than English inside the polling station.

6.2              The above measures were summarised in the Tower Hamlets Local Protocol which was updated in consultation with partners and interested parties and re-launched on 30th March 2015.  A copy of the Local Protocol, 2015 is attached at Appendix B.  As well as setting out the enhanced integrity measures around registration and the election, the Local Protocol proposed clear standards of conduct required of candidates, agents and campaigners, to complement the Electoral Commission’s own revised Code of Conduct for 2015.  All candidates and parties contesting the elections were invited to sign the protocol and undertake to observe these standards, which included:-

•         Campaigners and canvassers not to collect completed postal or proxy application forms from electors for delivery to the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO).

•         Candidates and agents not to cause or allow to be published any material that misrepresents any person or includes derogatory statements about another candidate.

•         Candidates not to allow more than one campaigner per party or independent candidate to be present outside any entrance to the polling place at any one time. 

6.3              The Returning Officer again provided a dedicated e-mail account and telephone hotline for any complaints of possible fraudulent activity.  Any allegations submitted via this route were guaranteed a response within one working day, and if referral to the Police was required, the Police would contact the complainant within a further two working days.

6.4              The Electoral Commission lent its support to the Local Protocol. 

To ensure full understanding of the process, rules, standards of conduct expected and the Local Protocol, a total of four Candidates and Agents meetings were held.  A Communications Plan was agreed with the Council’s media team to ensure effective communication of key messages regarding the election and in particular security/integrity of the vote. Publicity was co-ordinated with partner agencies. In addition reactive work and social media monitoring continued through to election day and beyond.

6.5              The Local Protocol was a voluntary agreement and not all candidates or parties signed it.  It did however still represent a useful statement of the standards of conduct expected and the commitment of the partner agencies to address the issues covered and to challenge some aspects of the culture locally in relation to electoral campaigning.  The incoming Returning Officer is therefore invited to consider utilising a similar protocol at future elections.

6.6              From subsequent comments made by the Commissioners and noted by the Returning Officer, it is suggested that earlier and more extensive communications are required, particularly focussing on the integrity measures and targeted at specific hard-to-reach groups and communities. 

6.7              It is suggested that the information should be presented in distinct phases, with the earliest phase publicising the timelines and various deadlines (registration, absent vote etc) leading up to the election.  This would be followed by a second phase highlighting the practicalities of the voting process; and then a third focussing on integrity messages such as the secrecy of the process, postal and other votes to be completed without interference, the need for vigilance in the case of e.g. shared letter boxes.        

              Allegations and evidence

6.8              The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has advised that in both 2014 and 2015 there were instances of allegations being made against individuals by political rivals with no evidence to back them up.  On occasion there is no named informant for the police to interview or the person named is unwilling to follow the matter up.  As well as being a waste of police time such allegations can, if they receive publicity, unjustifiably damage public confidence in the electoral process.  Even where specific information was provided, including in relation to some matters that were subsequently raised again in the Election Court, the Crown Prosecution Service found in many cases that the evidence presented did not meet the test to allow a prosecution. 

6.9              Many allegations are the result of a misunderstanding of what is an offence.  Whilst not being an offence, some actions may represent a breach of the Electoral Commission’s Code of Conduct.    Although it may not be appropriate or practicable for alleged breaches of the Code to be referred to the Commission or subject to any sanction, this can be a problem particularly where an independent candidate does not have a party machinery to which code violations can be referred.  The Returning Officer should consider whether he could usefully publicise in his post-election report the number and type of allegations that were made of a breach of the Code.  

6.10              Potentially instances of fraudulent registration can be brought to light as a result of an investigation of another matter, for example housing benefit or council tax fraud.  Relevant information held by the local authority’s Audit team and other investigatory functions should be routinely shared with the Returning Officer.         

              Individual Electoral Registration (IER)             

6.11              The introduction of IER has without doubt increased the security and accuracy of the electoral register.  The system requires each elector to register individually and to provide his/her date of birth and National Insurance Number (NINO) which are checked against Department of Work and Pensions records.  However, IER relies on the security of the NINO in the first instance, and does not necessarily provide a firm link to a particular address.  Further measures are required to improve the process, especially where an elector has more than one address

The nominations process

6.12              It can occur that there are doubts about the accuracy of information contained in a candidate’s nomination papers.   The Returning Officer’s powers in this regard are very limited.  The Electoral Commission has previously recommended that the Returning Officer should have express powers to reject a sham nomination, and that the law should set out the powers and duties of a Returning Officer for all elections.   The Metropolitan Police Service have suggested that there could usefully be changes to the nomination form template to provide more detail and clarity – including guidance notes in layman’s terms on what is required and the consequences of false information (e.g. using terms such as ‘home’ address, giving specifics of ineligibility criteria and asking the candidate to confirm that none apply to him/her).

6.13              One of the election agents at the 2015 Mayoral election has proposed that any documents (e.g. nomination registers, absent vote lists) provided to prospective candidates before the election should be returned after the poll or a fine imposed.  Electronic information should be provided with a time-limited password.

6.14              The Returning Officer notes that the Electoral Commission has previously advised that the complexity of electoral law can produce obstacles & delays in the investigation of electoral offences; and recommended that this should be  addressed, e.g. by dispensing with the division between corrupt and illegal practices, simplifying the offence of bribery and scrapping the separate offence of treating.  There is also some ambiguity regarding the timing of electoral offences. 

6.15              The Returning Officer endorses these points and would add that the relatively large number of allegations received of relatively minor breaches of the ‘imprint’ rules can have the effect of (i) inflating the number of allegations to be investigated and (ii) diverting resources from potentially more serious matters.

7.              POSTAL VOTING

7.1              Over 26,500 postal votes were issued for the Parliamentary election, of which approximately 70% were returned. The figures for the Mayoral election, for which a different franchise applies, were c. 28,500 and 60% respectively. Discussions were held with the Royal Mail regarding measures to ensure security of delivery. All postal vote statements were scanned and verified at Postal Vote Opening Sessions run by a dedicated Deputy Acting Returning Officer (DARO).  All staff involved in adjudication of personal identifiers were trained on Electoral Commission forensic handwriting guidance.  Procedures and staff instructions were reviewed and agents advised that no 'tallying' was permitted.

7.2              Between the two elections, the Returning Officer and Deputy Returning Officer reviewed the process and the criteria for adjudication of personal Identifiers to ensure full compliance with Electoral Commission guidance.  The notification letters to postal voters whose Personal Identifiers were rejected at the Parliamentary General Election were despatched in time for them to refresh their details prior to the 11th June.

7.3              The postal vote operation was a very efficient process including the final two opening sessions which were held at the count venue on each of the election days.   The incoming Returning Office is recommended to retain the arrangements made to process postal votes in 2015 and to consider a further possible improvement of splitting each of the postal vote opening sessions into two distinct parts – (i) opening and checking; and (ii) opening the ballot paper envelopes – in order to minimise down time for staff.   

7.4              The rejection rate for personal identifiers (mostly signature mismatch) at the May Parliamentary General Election was c.8% and at the June Mayoral Election c. 7%.  This is slightly lower than at previous elections in Tower Hamlets but still higher than the national average.  It is recommended that discussion be held with neighbouring boroughs’ Returning Officers to confirm consistency of practice in adjudicating signatures and that the forensic handwriting guidance to D(A)ROs should be supplemented by attendance at a suitable training course.   Communications activity should also be undertaken to improve information to electors on the process for verifying personal identifiers – including the need to use their customary signature regardless of language.

8.              POLLING STATIONS

8.1              111 polling stations were used, in a total of 76 polling places at each election.  Double polling stations utilised a single ballot box to simplify the process for electors and to expedite the delivery and verification processes.

8.2              Polling stations were all visited and surveyed in advance of polling day by the Returning Officer’s staff and Police officers and plans made for access and egress routes, layout and areas to be kept clear at the entrances, which were then marked out by hazard tape on the day. 

8.3              Presiding Officers and police on duty were trained jointly in advance to ensure better communication and a common understanding of the rules, roles and responsibilities.  This was a very successful initiative which addressed criticism at the 2014 elections that staff had failed to intervene when confronted with unacceptable behaviour due to a lack of clarity about their role; and provided a useful briefing for the police officers on a specialist area of law that is not covered in existing syllabuses.   Police officers were thus better equipped not to panic if an allegation came to them and could check with the presiding officer in the first instance whether, for example, the matter had arisen from an administrative error.

8.4              Polling Places were ranked Red, Amber or Green according to a risk assessment and Tower Hamlets Police provided cover for all polling stations throughout the day with locally based officers (2 x police officers on ‘Red’ assessed stations, including in some cases a body-cam equipped officer, 1 x officer on others, a PCSO on some ‘Green’ stations).  In a further improvement over 2014, all police officers on duty were required to complete a quality-assured duty statement before being released, to ensure evidence was available if subsequently required.

8.5              A joint Returning Officer/Police bid to Cabinet Office funds available to 17 high risk authorities to address integrity resulted in funds for enhanced electoral registration activity and extended police hours on the Parliamentary General Election polling day.  The local authority and the Metropolitan Police Service both applied significant resources to the 2015 elections and all of the agencies involved in funding the activities described in this report should be commended for the priority that they accorded the work.  

8.6              All polling station staff were required to confirm that they are not affiliated to any political party or candidate and all staff were appointed to work at a polling station outside their home constituency and where they had not previously worked.  This was designed to avoid accusations that had occurred previously of overfamiliarity between staff and certain candidates or agents.  The Returning Officer also instructed that staff speak only English in the polling station and count. This provision was included in staff instructions and training. 

8.7               After the Parliamentary General Election and before the Mayoral by-election, the Returning Officer and Police colleagues reviewed the arrangements in place at polling stations with a view to making further improvements e.g. to the extent of the marked-out areas.  Three presiding officers whose performance had been inadequate were replaced and two new polling places were identified to replace venues that were unavailable on 11th June.  A briefing was prepared for presiding officers to highlight issues that had arisen on 7th May and the differences in the 11th June poll including the ballot paper/Supplementary Vote system. Presiding officers were given photographs of the area to mark outside the polling place and the process was explained when they collected their ballot box and sundry equipment the day before the poll.

8.8              There was significantly positive feedback from the public, candidates and agents on both the organisation of the polling stations and the policing operation.  In comparison with 2014, very few complaints were received about conduct at the polling stations.    The incoming Returning Officer is recommended to consider repeating the measures taken at future elections within available resources.   This is likely to require a more stringent prioritisation of polling places to target more limited available resources, including police staff, on the highest risk sites according to a rigorous risk assessment and ranking of polling places.  In relation to the marked restricted areas outside polling places, the Returning Officer should consider the best way of marking these out, and the provision of an area for Tellers, in the case of inclement weather.     

              Personation allegations

8.9              Five allegations of potential personation were received in total after the two election days which were passed to the Police for investigation.  In this regard the MPS Special Enquiry Team has advised that in some cases the presiding officer did not complete the personation statement and records provided little evidence for investigation.  There was no CCTV at most polling stations.  The Returning officer will wish to address these points for future elections.  It may be useful for Presiding Officers to annotate the corresponding number list periodically (e.g. hourly) to provide an approximate time point for the issue of each ballot paper in the case of any subsequent query. 

8.10              Each of the agencies involved in delivering the elections has made the point that requiring electors to produce some proof of identity at the polling station would substantially address the risk of personation, and this is recommended to the UK Government for consideration.

8.11              A small number of misprinted ballot papers were discovered at the UK Parliamentary General Election count, together with 7 x tendered papers from 3 x stations and a number of postal ballots in their envelopes.   The Returning Officer is recommended at future elections to emphasise at the Presiding Officer training:-  

• In the event of misprinted ballots – do not issue and alert the Returning Officer
• Reminder of procedure for tendered papers
• Postal ballots only in dedicated receptacle.

9.              VERIFICATION AND COUNT

9.1              The verification and count for both the 7th May and 11th June elections took place at the ExCeL Centre, London.  The venue was chosen at a time when there was a possibility of the elections being combined and due to its capacity/size and facilities to ensure security and crowd management as well as a more efficient count. 

9.2              A range of improvements were introduced to the layout and count procedures including double-width counting tables; Tensa barriers to mark out areas reserved for authorised agents and candidates; external security staff on the reception desk; security wristbands rather than lanyards for all attendees; and a requirement for photographic proof of identity. 

9.3              The counting procedures were streamlined by measures such as using a single ballot box at double stations and count supervisors initiating recounts without referral to the accountants.  The Deputy (Acting) Returning Officers, senior count supervisors and other key staff were equipped with radio microphones to ensure efficient communications.

9.4              All attendees were required to sign a code of conduct as a condition of entry.  CCTV was operational in the venue.  Consultation was undertaken in advance on the count arrangements and Agents and Candidates briefings were used prior to election day to explain to interested parties the arrangements for the count and the standards of conduct required. 

9.5              A full review of count procedures and paperwork was conducted and instructions to count staff redrafted.  Count training was enhanced including a ‘dress rehearsal’ in situ approximately three hours before the start, and a higher ratio of count supervisors to assistants ensured more efficient management of the process.  No writing implements were provided to the counting assistants and all necessary count documentation was completed by the supervisors.  Count staff were not permitted to communicate in any language other than English within the count venue.

9.6              Overall, the Parliamentary General Election count went well and was an efficient and especially well-ordered event relative to previous counts in the borough.  The venue was spacious and provided a more orderly context than previous venues.  The new arrangements described above worked well.  The declaration times of 4.55 a.m. (Poplar & Limehouse) and 5.25 a.m.(Bethnal Green & Bow) were close to those estimated and significantly earlier than at previous elections. 

Further improvements from 7th May to 11th June

9.7              However, the Acting Returning Officer and observers identified a number of aspects of the count that could be improved for the 11th June event, which in the Tower Hamlets political context was likely to prove more challenging.  These included:-

• enhanced security measures and a new approach to security of the event to ensure resilience;
• changes to the layout of the room which because of its size made it difficult for management/the Acting Returning Officer to see, and be seen from, all parts of the count at once; and
• measures to further speed up the count.  Specifically the Acting Returning Officer identified three main sections of the count where time was lost and improvements were possible:- (i) the final postal vote opening session (up to 2,000 postal votes were received on the final day, including more than 1,000 handed in at the polling stations or collected by the Royal Mail sweep and arriving at the count after 10.00 p.m.); (ii) Queues at the ballot box receipt point; and (iii) reducing the number of doubtful papers set aside for final adjudication by the Acting Returning Officer.

9.8              Supervisors were asked to provide feedback on the performance of their team members and some staff identified who were not used on 11th June.

9.9              Overall, although there were additional management resources in place and additional planning activity, it was still the case that too much of the detailed management was handled by the Acting Returning Officer and in particular the Deputy ARO.

The Mayoral and Stepney Green by-election counts, 11th June 2015

9.10              Pursuant to the above, a formal Silver Command Group was established, chaired by the Tower Hamlets Police ‘Silver’ to take forward the security planning for 11th June and support the Returning Officer in the planning and implementation of the event.  A statement of expectation was agreed to clarify roles and a Dedicated Event Manager was identified in consultation with LBTH Facilities Management – to take overall responsibility for the logistics of the external planning of the event and work to the Returning Officer as client for the count planning work and venue/police liaison for the Mayoral election.

9.11              In consultation with the Returning Officer and Police, the Venue management provided additional facilities for the 11th June count including:-

-          No public access to the entire venue from 8.00 p.m. and a sterile area around count hall. 

-          Additional security staff and larger desks, revised arrangements for wristbands, separate entrances for staff and others, queueing barriers as required.

-          Restricted entry point to the count hall only and separate security entrance to the Postal Vote opening.

-          Bag searches

-          No alcohol on sale at catering outlets

9.12          Improved instructions and directions were issued to presiding officers regarding the delivery of ballot boxes and they were encouraged to undertake a dry run of the route in advance.  A dedicated manager was identified in advance to plan and take control of the delivery and receipt process, including more staff/runners at access points to direct presiding officers and take boxes to holding area and avoid delays. 

9.13         The Returning Officer made changes to the layout of the count venue in response to the issues identified at 9.7 above.  A smaller total area was used compared to 7th May (6,000 sq mtrs compared to 9,000) with a single large horseshoe layout for the Mayoral contest and a separate secure area for the ward by-election.  120 count assistants worked in teams of 6 for the verification and count.   Additional staff were provided for the final postal vote opening session.

9.14        Staff were allocated seats at the count and were not permitted to sit with their friends. 

9.15         The Returning Officer implemented a number of efficiency measures to limit downtime for staff including commencing the ‘count’ stage of the Mayoral count before the ‘verification’ statement had been completed, and with the agreement of candidates starting to sort the second preference votes for the two leading  candidates in advance of the announcement of the detailed first preference votes.  

9.16         Doubtful ballot papers rejected at Deputy Returning Officer adjudication were stamped rejected at the count table and removed from the final Returning Officer adjudication.

9.17               The measures described were successful and the incoming Returning Officer is recommended to incorporate the learning points above into the planning for future counts.  The declaration time for the Mayoral election (4.30 a.m.) was exactly as estimated and significantly earlier than at previous elections. 

9.18              However further improvements are possible.  For example the layout of the count venue could be further improved by moving the postal vote opening session closer to the ballot box delivery point.  An even more flexible approach to the sharing of work between count teams would further reduce down time for count staff.  More importantly, the Electoral Commission has identified that the unused and spoilt ballot papers were not verified prior to the count for the 11th June election and the Returning Officer will need to ensure that this is addressed at future elections.

9.19              In the event, as a result of the timing of the Election Court judgement, the UK Parliamentary General Election and the Mayoral election were not combined in Tower Hamlets.   If they had been combined on the same day, drawing on the experience of the 2014 combined elections, the (Acting) Returning Officer would have proposed a two-stage count event, with the combined verification and the counting of the UK Parliamentary General Election papers taking place overnight, with a brief interval before commencing the Mayoral election count with a fresh team of staff the following day.  The incoming Returning Officer is recommended to consider such an approach in the case of future combined elections.

10.              CHALLENGING ELECTION RESULTS

10.1              In the light of experience of the Election Petition and subsequent court judgement in connection with the 2014 Tower Hamlets Mayoral Election, the Returning Officer and partner agencies have a number of recommendations for review of the process for challenging election results.      

10.2              The Statutory Timetable including the late registration deadline presents a serious challenge in relation to the investigation and resolution of complaints pre-election; and there are a number of factors that work against the swift investigation and prosecution of offenders.

10.3              The Electoral Commission has previously recommended that challenges should be simpler, more modern and follow less formal rules of procedure; that Returning Officers should have powers to bring petitions; and that the issue of a public interest petitioner should be investigated.

10.4              The Metropolitan Police Service Special Enquiry Team has told this review that they would favour a complete review of the election petition process, potentially bringing the process to a criminal standard of proof and reducing the costs to petitioners which can currently be prohibitive. 

11.              CONCLUDING REMARKS

11.1              The elections on 7th May 2015 and 11th June 2015 in Tower Hamlets were delivered successfully.   The counts for each of the elections were orderly and more efficient than at previous elections in the borough.

11.2              Far fewer complaints were received than in May 2014 and no doubt has been cast on the declared results nor any election petition challenge mounted.

11.3              The Returning Officer for Tower Hamlets was part of the sample of Returning Officers whose performance was monitored by the Electoral Commission in respect of the May 2015 polls.  A series of monitoring returns were submitted.  The Commission has confirmed (by letter on 25th June 2015) that further to a review of the their proposed assessments by a panel of members of the UK Electoral Advisory Board and senior members of the Electoral Administration Team at the Commission, the Returning Officer has been assessed as having met the required standards.

11.4              The measures and learning points outlined in this paper should inform any future elections in Tower Hamlets in order to further build on the successes of 2015 and address any remaining areas for improvement.  The challenge will be to repeat this within the resources likely to be available, particularly in respect of the policing operation at the polling stations and the identification of a suitable count venue.  The Returning Officer would however point out that effective anti-fraud measures and sensible precautions inevitably give rise to certain costs and this must be recognised by the respective agencies responsible for providing a future Returning Officer/Electoral Registration Officer with the appropriate resources.  The successful initiatives implemented in 2015 by the 17 ‘higher risk’ authorities eligible for the additional Cabinet Office funding demonstrate why such a programme is required.      

11.5              All action points identified should be incorporated into project planning for the May 2016 Greater London Authority and subsequent elections.  It is important that a project management and risk assessment approach is once again utilised, with ownership of all actions assigned and time-bound.  A post-election review, in consultation with agents, candidates and other interested parties, will be undertaken in each case to identify further improvements. 

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS