Andrew Dismore

Labour London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden Andrew Dismore AM says that the report  into Barnet’s election maladministration   has failed to answer many of the questions to which the public expects answers.

Mr Dismore has  today  submitted a list of 30 questions (see below) for answer at the General Functions Committee meeting  on 9th June, which is due to receive the report.

Mr Dismore said:

‘The Heath report only scratches the surface of Barnet’s election administration problems, even with its  findings of serious maladministration.

‘As expected, the inquiry has  whitewashed  those responsible, apart from the former Chief Executive who has become the scapegoat for the failures of others, especially other senior officers and  elected  Councillors , who are running but in the end can’t hide from their responsibilities.

‘Key issues that any proper  inquiry ought to have addressed include whether Barnet’s  electoral services department   is adequately resourced in terms of finance and staff numbers, training, competence  and experience- the report implies  this not to be the case- but little is being done to address this.

‘That is a  matter for politicians, the leading members  and relevant committee chair of  Barnet  Council,  who set the budget and the staffing parameters for the department at the request of the Returning Officer, who as Chief Executive is always under pressure to  make cuts to meet the Council’s budget limits.

‘The extremely  narrow terms of reference ignored the many recurring problems that  beset every election  in Barnet, including but not limited to  maladministration  of postal votes and poll  cards,  the poor state of the

electoral register, the location, publicity for  and administration  of polling   stations,  so we can only assume these problems will recur when the Referendum  vote happens,  as there is  no move to address them until a further lackadaisical inquiry reports by  ‘the end of the year’ !

‘We can only pray that the outcome of the Referendum is not close- as if it is, and if the inevitable failings of Barnet happen again, this could have  both national and international  political  and economic repercussions.

‘This report was  more about saving the skins of Cllr Cornelius and Cllr Scannell, rather  than addressing the root causes  of  all the multifarious  problems that comprise Barnet Council’s  electoral Augean stables.’

 

Mr Dismore’s questions for General Functions Committee re the elections  investigation

1. What are the financial terms of Mr Travers’s departure?

2. It is clear from the Heath report that serious errors were made by a number of  officers both  senior and junior other than Mr Travers: what further disciplinary action is  being taken against  those responsible?

3. Why was there no proper appointment procedure for Mr Heath?

4. What are the financial terms of Mr Heath’s appointment?

5. When Mr Heath was appointed, was it known  he was not available to attend the committee meeting ?

6. When Mr Heath was appointed, was it known  he was available to spend only one day in Barnet?

7. Why did your press release  ( and letter to me of 18/5/16) erroneously infer that the terms of reference had been agreed  by Labour  group and the Lib Dem member?

8. Why was the investigation evidence collection left in the hands of those responsible for  the administration  of the election?

9. Why do you think the public were made sufficiently aware of how to put forward their  evidence to the  investigation?

10. How many members of the public responded  to this call for evidence?

11. Hop many complaints were received that referred to matters other than the ‘wrong register’ issue?

12. Why did the terms of reference for the investigation not include the recurrent problems of postal  votes?

13. Why did the terms of reference for the investigation not include the recurrent problems of poll cards?

14. Why did the terms of reference for the investigation not include the locations of polling stations, especially those  that had moved?

15. Why did the terms of reference for the investigation not include the poor state of the electoral register?

16. Why did the terms of reference for the investigation not include the inaccessibility of the ‘hotline’ ?

17. What training will  the proposed 10 ‘agents’ at the call centre be given in elections rules and administration?

18. Who will the ‘agents’ be employed by?

19. Has his  report been amended, edited or altered in any way since the first draft was provided by Mr Heath?

20. If so, in what ways was the report amended, edited or altered?

21. What are you doing about the resourcing of the electoral administration?

22. Why do you think the public will be satisfied that the investigation has been transparent?

23. Why was the collection point for ballot boxes changed to ‘Best Hub’ Colindale?

24. Paragraph 1.28 of the committee report refers to checking the referendum register against  the GLA register for ‘accuracy and completeness’: I assume you are aware that these two polls have different franchises?

25. Do you really consider that producing a report into all the election failings in Barnet can wait till the ‘end of the year’ ( para1.46 committee report) ?

26.  Which 5 wards were the last to  receive the correct registers?

27.  Why do you think the Chief Executive of the Corporation of London is the best person to advise Barnet on electoral  processes?

28. Why are you confident that there will be no problems in the conduct of the Referendum, if that is indeed the case?

29. What are the  General Functions Committee’s  terms of reference in relation to elections, and what do you interpret  them to  mean?

30. Why did the terms of reference for the investigation not include political accountability for what went wrong?

ends