Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 319)
TUESDAY 16 JUNE 1998
MR JOHN
TURNER, MR
COLIN MARSHALL
AND MR
JOHN BAMBROOK
MR DAVID
MONKS AND
MR ROGER
MORRIS
300. Looking to the future, could one have a
system where the electoral register was on a single computer linked
up to all polling stations so that when somebody voted his vote
would be counted as having voted at any polling station?
(Mr Monks) That could be done; the technology exists.
301. What about the possibility of supermarket
polling stations?
(Mr Turner) Yes.
(Mr Monks) Yes. Sundays now in this country are very
different from what they used to be when I was a boy.
302. That would also presuppose that the electoral
register was on a linked computer system?
(Mr Monks) Yes. There is no point in tackling all
these things piecemeal. One must introduce them as a package and
then one will see a change. My concern is that if there is tinkering
at the edge not much improvement will come of it, which is a shame.
303. What do you say about mobile polling stations
in particular for people with disabilities?
(Mr Marshall) We would also support a trial of that.
That could be applied also to nursing homes and also aged persons'
accommodation units. As far as nursing homes are concerned, we
are of the view that pensioners are open to the abuse of what
is called "granny farming".
304. What about telephone and Internet voting?
(Mr Marshall) It will come.
(Mr Monks) There are people out there now who are
trying to get us interested in such things. I agree that it will
come. On balance, I prefer to see the PC at the polling station.
I talk to some of my members who come from the Fens and they say
that some people there are very concerned about using the phone
and may be put off by this suggestion. I referred to this matter
at a debate on the millennium and I was heckled; I was not very
popular. It would be a great shame if we lost elderly people and
others who were unhappy with the technology.
Mr Winnick
305. Referring to supermarkets, am I right in
saying that there was an experiment in one Tesco store at the
last local election and the turnout was abysmal? Was that because
the experiment was not publicised?
(Mr Turner) The problem was that it was simply the
Tesco store as opposed to the church hall or school; it offered
nothing more or less. The possibility is that if one uses such
a method one can persuade someone. If a shopper from the next
polling district asks, "Can I vote?" and the response
is, "Sorry, you're not on my register", he or she may
say, "Blow it. I'm not going to vote today because you're
being obstructive."
306. My next question is about the use of new
technology such as smart cards. I believe that such methods have
advantages and should be used for voting. But do you accept that,
although fortunately almost everyone in Britain is law-abiding
in terms of electoral matters, nevertheless there should be legislation
that provides for heavy penalties for any attempt to vote more
than once?
(Mr Monks) Yes. This process is too important for
it to be flawed by fraud. I do not think that people will be deterred
by the heaviness of the penalty but the certainty of detection
and prosecution. If that were to be a burden on returning officers,
CPS or the commission, as long as good evidence could be produced
and we could get access to proper records and convict people it
would be a good example to everybody else.
307. You would be in favour of quite substantial
fines?
(Mr Monks) Yes.
Mr Russell
308. As to supermarkets, the answer provided
seemed to indicate a big "no" to that as being a real
alternative. How many supermarkets are there compared with small
village halls?
(Mr Turner) That is the nub of the problem. Why should
it be supermarkets? If one is to do it at all it must be done
as a whole. It is no good tinkering with it round the edges and
saying that we will have supermarkets instead of something else.
Frankly, that does not achieve very much. We change polling stations
all the time for lots of different reasons. If anybody goes to
a polling station regardless of where he is within a constituency
there should be the means that allow him to vote. He should not
simply be told, "Well, you must live within the little patch
that surrounds the supermarket." I do not think that that
takes it one step further.
309. Do you also agree that it is government
policy to reduce traffic and supermarkets rely on people parking
their cars at them? That would be contrary to what the Government
seek to do in another direction, would it not?
(Mr Turner) I do not think that I am competent to
discuss government policy on transport. Clearly, you have hit
the nail on the head. To a certain extent, we must look at the
change in society and the way in which people lead their lives.
One needs to ensure that the polling stations are where and when
people want them to be. Simply to substitute one building for
another will not get any more voters, but if we make it easier
for those voters to combine voting with any other operation that
they are carrying out then I believe that there will be an improvement
in turnout.
(Mr Monks) That is true of out-of-town supermarkets
but planning policies have now changed. Such supermarkets are
now completely outside planning authorities' objectives. The idea
is to try to regenerate town centres and build supermarkets in
them. Traders would be thrilled if more people turned up. People
may have religious objections to it, but would it not be a good
way to enliven the town centre on a Sunday? Lots of people complain
about town centres being very dull on Sundays. This would be a
good way of bringing in people. This does not apply only to supermarkets.
In an area like mine there are lots of commuters getting on trains
who would like a polling station at the railway station, for example.
We are here to serve the public.
Mr Corbett
310. What is the ideal population for a polling
station? Is it one for every 3,000 voters or whatever?
(Mr Turner) I work on the basis of one per 1,500,
but I come from a highly urbanised area.
(Mr Morris) I work on the basis of one per 1,300 to
1,400.
311. Are you open to representations about location?
(Mr Morris) Yes. One must bear in mind that if one
tries to cram in more people one ends up with queues and extra
staff to cope with them—all of the difficulties of which
I am sure Members as candidates are aware. One must strike a balance.
Chairman: We do not have queues in Sunderland.
Mr Winnick: Does anyone vote in Sunderland?
(Mr Turner) An interesting point can be made as to
that. I do not know the average attendance at the Stadium of Light,
but there may be 40,000 people turning up. Perhaps if there are
polling stations there a fair proportion of people will vote.
That is an illustration of having polling stations where people
want to be.
Chairman
312. Let us move to the question of making polling
more convenient for the disabled and elderly. As to access to
polling stations, do you believe that compulsory national standards
are an acceptable way to tackle accessibility problems or should
responsibility remain at local level?
(Mr Morris) Perhaps I may embark on this question.
SOLACE included in its evidence some of the experiences in Northampton.
I am not sure whether it is appropriate to establish national
standards by law. However, I believe that standard and legal requirements
should march in step with whatever other standards there are for
access to public buildings for the disabled in general terms.
With one exception—where we do not own the building—Northampton
believes that it has acceptable access. However, in some cases
it is temporary because we do not own the building. We also try
to have regard to the fact that in people's minds "disabled"
automatically means "wheelchairs". We do not limit our
approach to wheelchairs. We recognise that there are many other
kinds of difficulties experienced by people. According to my observations
of polling stations on the day, one of the difficulties does not
lie with peoplewho are immobile in that sense—because if
they wish they can have absent votes and often they have cars
adapted to take wheelchairs—but who have great difficulty
in walking. They may arrive by car at the pavement which is 150
yds away from a school. They have to walk there and back to the
car. We are alive to that dimension. I would broaden the issue
from too great a focus on the word "disabled" into a
situation where polling stations as a whole must be capable of
being used effectively by all the people who require to use them,
whether they be the blind or subject to any form of incapacity.
313. Are you for or against compulsory national
standards?
(Mr Morris) I am in favour of a requirement that local
authorities should make certain that polling stations are readily
accessible to all those who need to use them. I simply question
whether the law should specifically require standards for polling
stations when there are lots of other public buildings not subject
to such requirements. For example, in California there are very
strict standards about public access to buildings. It seems to
me that any law of that kind should be considered in that context
rather than that elections should be singled out. However, in
terms of good practice I think that the point is self-evident.
314. I think you are saying that it should be
left as it is?
(Mr Morris) I do not suggest that the present state
of affairs is adequate for all polling stations; it is not. Certainly,
all authorities should be encouraged to apply the highest standards.
We do not consider that we have solved all the problems in Northampton
but over the past few years we have made a concerted effort and
have greatly improved the situation. But the stations have to
be changed from time to time. We rely increasingly on buildings
that are not in public ownership. Mobile stations present all
kinds of additional problems because of the tendency to have steps
and ramps. I am hesitant about formal legal compulsion.
315. I cannot work out whether you are for or
against compulsory national standards.
(Mr Morris) I am not in favour of a legal requirement
for a national standard for election buildings alone. I believe
that any move should be in step with the general requirements
for access to public buildings.
316. But if there were a national standard there
would be nothing to stop you using a building for a polling station
that already met those standards?
(Mr Morris) That is true—and we would certainly
try to do that.
(Mr Marshall) We agree with that. The problems arise
on new residential developments which are often built without
community facilities. Therefore, we have to resort to temporary
huts. We provide portable ramps and do what we can, but I do not
think that we would ever be able to comply with a rigid standard.
317. You would also be against compulsory standards?
(Mr Marshall) I recommend that returning officers
keep in close contact with local access officers and committees.
If one can discuss the various problems one can come up with a
good deal of agreement as to what can and cannot be done. Some
of the things that SCOPE want us to do are illegal, for example
to have doors in schools that open inwards. They are required
to open outwards in case of fire. We can work together with SCOPE,
but we want facilities provided not just for polling day but for
general use.
318. As a general rule, do you co-operate with
local disability organisations?
(Mr Marshall) I do. Before any major election I have
a meeting with them.
(Mr Bambrook) Yes. We employed local access groups
to do a survey of our polling stations at the most recent elections.
(Mr Turner) Precisely the same.
(Mr Monks) We also do this. But there are variations
as between local authorities. Recently, I wrote on a personal
basis to all returning officers to remind them of their broad
obligations to the disabled. I got back a lot of letters from
disappointed colleagues who had tried very hard over the past
few years. At the end of the day, if one is running a poll and
the only available building in a village is that one basically
that is it.
(Mr Morris) We have tried to work through our own
access officer and appropriate community groups. I endorse the
point made about increasing reliance placed on buildings that
are not within public control. Recent developments in local government
organisation, privatisation and so on have all meant that a greater
proportion of buildings, over which I no longer have a say, must
be used for elections. Sometimes it means that the owners are
not willing to allow those buildings to be adapted for occasional
use. One tries to get over it by ramping and so on but that has
its limitations.
319. Grants are available for ramps. Are they
taken up?
(Mr Morris) We utilise that wherever possible.
| 
