Disability Discrimination (Provision of Voting Facilities) (Hansard, 9 July 1997)

§ Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to make it unlawful for a provider of voting facilities to discriminate against disabled people. There are many reasons that I wish to introduce the Bill, but there are three main ones. The first is the "Polls Apart 1992" survey carried out by Scope, which spelled out some of the difficulties that disabled people face in getting access to polling stations. It showed that only 12 per cent. of polling stations were fully accessible, while 88 per cent. had significant barriers that would have prevented a disabled person from voting there.
Only one out of every eight polling stations are accessible to all disabled people. A quarter had two or more steps, 13 per cent. had temporary ramps, and only one in three that needed permanent ramps had them. The survey found problems with doorways and lighting, a lack of privacy, polling booths and ballot boxes that were inappropriate or located where people with a disability could not use them, and slippery floors. I could go on and on.
That survey on its own would have been enough to justify the Bill but, on top of that, Scope has produced "Polls Apart 1997", which is my second reason for introducing the Bill. That report will not be released until next week, so, although I have seen a copy, I shall not reveal the details. However, without giving away any great secrets, I can say that the report shows that things have not got any better. It was a bigger survey, and, in some respects and in some areas, things seem to be worse. There are, however, a few positives.
Some councils have made enormous strides, sometimes at very little cost and, I have to say, with very little help from the Home Office. They have made amazing improvements simply by changing their attitude. Unfortunately, those councils are the exceptions that prove the rule. The third reason for introducing the Bill is my personal experience; what I have seen in my locality has appalled me.
During the election, I went to a polling station on my own patch. I found a well-signed entry for the polling station, went through the gateway, and found a path that was 100 to 150 metres long, with, roughly every six feet, a step going down. There was a hand rail for people with a disability. I helped an elderly lady with bandages on her leg all the way down that path to get to the polling station, only to find, when I reached the bottom, that there was side access to a road. The woman could have had her taxi bring her directly to the door of the polling station, but a simple matter of bad signing had prevented it.
All that was despite the fact that I had written to the chief executive before the elections asking him to ensure that staff were trained in matters of access and to take account of the needs of disabled people. In response, I got a self-congratulatory letter saying: We think that over 50 per cent. of our polling stations are accessible to disabled people. That is the authority's assessment, not mine, and I suspect that, if Scope had surveyed it, far less than 50 per cent. of stations would have been found to be accessible. 951 The chief executive informed me that there was no problem because some of his inspecting officers had portable ramps that they carried around with them on election day. I wondered how they knew when a disabled person would turn up, and at what polling station, so that they could nip across in their cars with the portable ramp. To be quite honest, it was nonsense.
I was even more surprised to find that the authority had no knowledge of the fact that there were grants available for elections—50 per cent. grants for temporary ramps and 80 per cent. for the new, more accessible polling booths. Despite the fact that, since 1993, the Home Office has paid out £179,000 in such grants, my authority was unaware of them. I had told the chief executive that I was sure that there were grants, but he said that there were not. As recently as June, he said: Firstly, I have checked with the Home Office about the availability of grants for access to polling stations and, as I thought, no such grants are available.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth)
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Heppell
I am getting a shake of the head from the Minister—I hope that I have not got it wrong.

§ Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak)
No, you are right.

§ Mr. Heppell
I am right—okay.
To give credit to the chief executive of Nottingham city, he is now suggesting that £150,000 be put into the capital programme at the beginning of 1998 to try to deal with some of those problems, so things are moving.
The Representation of the People Act requires local authorities to make polling stations accessible to disabled people, but, in my view, local authorities are clearly not doing so. One of the problems is that elections are the one area in which council officers do not take any directions from elected councillors—they can do what they like, and it does not matter what anyone else says.
To be quite honest, it shows, because some returning officers turn into little Hitlers—any advice one gives them is considered political, and they are determined to run it their way. That is a more general point about elections. Many election officers are helpful and do their best, but many councils do not issue clear guidelines about how they should deal with disabled people. It seems that it is left to the officers' common sense. Well, let me tell the House that some people's common sense is my nonsense.
952 I find that many of the people dealing with the public during elections, in effect, tell disabled people off. They say to them, "It's really your fault—why didn't you put in for a postal vote? It's not my responsibility—you should have put in for a postal vote." My response is that postal votes are not an excuse for authorities to do nothing.
Why should disabled people be denied the right to go to a polling station and vote when they want to? Why do they have to vote ahead of the rest of us? In the 1992 elections, it is reckoned that 3 per cent. of the population switched from Labour to Conservative. That was not very helpful to my party, but people had the right to do that —they had information right up to polling day, and could wait until the day itself to make their minds up. Why should people with a disability not have that same benefit?
The whole postal vote system causes confusion to many people who have a disability. In 1990, the Government spent £750,000—three quarters of a million pounds—publicising the right of people living abroad to take part in British elections. As a result, 34,500 people registered: that worked out at £22 per person. The Government spent £14,500 to publicise the rights of the 7 million disabled people and the elderly to postal votes in elections; that worked out at 2p per person. No wonder people with disabilities believe that they are being treated as second-class—sometimes third-class—citizens.
In the past few years, enormous strides have been made in recognising the needs of disabled people and the fact that they deserve civil rights. I believe that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), was the catalyst for the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
The Bill that I propose is not significant; it is very modest. I am not asking for civil rights for disabled people in total; all I am saying is that I want to give them the basic democratic right that the majority of us enjoy—the right to vote.