House of Commons - Constitutional Affairs

Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs Written Evidence

Memorandum by Scope and The Pollen Shop ltd (VOT 15)

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Scope and The Pollen Shop ltd welcome the ODPM and DCA select committee's inquiry into voter registration.

1.2 For more than a decade, Scope's Polls Apart campaign for accessible democracy has been conducting detailed evaluations of local and national elections from the perspective of Britain's 8.6 million[32] disabled voters. The campaign has continuously pressed for the barriers which prevent many disabled voters from exercising their democratic rights to be removed.

1.3 The Pollen Shop ltd is a specialist inclusive communications consultancy that works with Scope on the Polls Apart campaign.

1.4 Scope and The Pollen Shop ltd research into access and democracy has been commissioned by the Electoral Commission, Disability Rights Commission and the Welsh Assembly. We have also worked with the ODPM and a number of partners in the businesses world to increase the accessibility of the e-voting pilots.

1.5 Scope reports on the subject of equal access to voting include:

—Polls Apart Enticott, Graham & Lamb (1992)

—Polls Apart 2 Enticott, Minns & Philpott (1997)

— Polls Apart 3 Morris & Scott (2001)

— Polls Apart—a future for accessible democracy—Morris, Scott & Woodward (2002)

— Polls Apart Cymru Barnett, Morris & Roddy (2003)

— Polls Apart—Developing inclusive democracy—Daone, Morris & Scott (2003)

— Polls Apart Cymru: A re-evaluation on access to democracy during the 2004 local elections Barnett, Morris & Roddy (2003)

— Polls Apart Developing inclusive e-democracy—Daone, Morris & Scott 2004

1.6 Scope and The Pollen Shop ltd strongly commend individual voter registration as a necessary step towards accessible elections. [33]We believe that it has the potential to revolutionise the accessibility to democratic processes for disabled voters.

1.7 Scope would welcome the opportunity to present oral evidence to the Select Committee about this important issue and to answer any questions the committee's members may have about our research into improving the accessibility democracy through individual voter registration.

BRITAIN'S DISABLED VOTERS

2.1 There are, on average, 13,400 disabled voters in each parliamentary constituency representing approximately one sixth of the total electorate.

2.2 Disabled people are not one homogenous group. Issues relating to individual registration have special resonance for the many millions of adults who have sensory, learning, co-ordination, communication and neurological impairments as well the large number of voters who have low literacy.

2.3 People with low literacy constitute a significant minority of potential voters. The Department for Education and Skills estimate that seven million[34] adults in the UK have poor literacy skills, including around half a million people with low English literacy skills because English is not their first language. The needs of people with low literacy will need to be reflected in any change to voter registration processes.

ADVANTAGES OF INDIVIDUAL REGISTRATION COMPARED WITH THE EXISTING SYSTEM OF HOUSEHOLD REGISTRATION

3.1 Individual registration has the potential to enable electoral administrators to provide election information such as polling cards or postal voting packs in accessible formats to disabled voters. This is dependant on a persons preferred format being recorded at the time of registration.

3.2 The current system of registration and providing information to voters assumes that all voters need information in standard print.

3.3 Preferred formats that electors could specify at registration include Braille, tape, large print or easy read. It is easy to record this data and to use it so voters receive the correct formats.

3.4 Although it is possible that an altered system of household registration could gather data on voters preferred formats there are a number of reasons why this would not work in practice. For example, it should be up to an individual to specify what format they prefer.

3.5 Polls Apart research has found that disabled people need information on the electoral process in formats that they are accustomed to using. Where they do not receive information in the appropriate formats they find the election process considerably more difficult to access. This is of increasing importance where an election system changes. [35]

3.6 A number of local authorities have taken steps to ensure that some voters who need information in alternative formats receive supplementary information. For example South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council produced large print information on the all-postal pilots in 2004. [36]This was sent to visually impaired people of whom the council was aware. Although this was in itself commendable, and is an example of good practice within the current system, it caused a number of problems. Not every person requiring large print information received documents in this format. This created a variation in the accessibility of the election between voters. Some voters found it difficult to understand why they were also sent the large print "unofficial" information in a separate mailing.

3.7 There have been a limited number of informal arrangements to provide support for disabled people to vote by creating accessible copies of voting information from people other than electoral administrators. Again although this is commendable, and shows need, it does not provide an adequate or appropriate service for disabled voters. [37]

3.8 For the register to be complete, all people who live in care or residential homes must be included. Research in Wales[38] has indicated a small number of people who live in care homes have not been registered to vote. This appears to be a particular issue for people with learning disabilities.

ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES OF ELECTRONIC RATHER THAN PAPER-BASED REGISTRATION SYSTEMS

4.1 Electronic systems (and the paper-based information that supports them) can be difficult for some people to access. [39]

4.2 This is especially true for people who do not use electronic systems such as telephone or internet banking regularly.

4.3 Paper systems create barriers for people who cannot access paper documents.

4.4 In paper-based elections, it is not possible for ballot papers to be produced in accessible formats. This is because, for example during the counting process it may be possible to identify the voting patterns of people using large print ballot papers. E-voting offers more choice for some disabled voters. For example visually impaired people can vote independently through the internet via screen reading technology. If they are able to do this, it makes no sense for them to receive inaccessible voter information or voter registration forms.

4.5 Providing there are adequate support structures, a combination of paper and electronic methods can create a broadly accessible system. Scope recommends that any system of individual registration should be able to be accessed both by paper and electronically.

DIFFICULTIES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE AND OTHERS UNABLE TO COMPLETE FORMS

5.1 Forms should not present a significant access barrier for most disabled people including those with a communication or learning impairment provided they are constructed accessibly. This means that forms should be written in plain English and without the use of overly complex expressions or legalistic jargon.

5.2 Forms should be available in a range of formats including Braille, easy read, large print and audio tape. Other formats such as British Sign Language videos could also be produced.

5.3 People should be able to complete the form using writing, through transcribing their information to another person such as a support worker, by phone or through the internet. Recognising that individual registration will have to cater for the needs of people who cannot access information in a printed format is vital to enable a proportion of the electorate to vote.

5.4 There is currently a requirement for voters to sign the registrations form. [40]Although electoral administrators will allow people to make a mark this requirement creates a barrier for people who do not use pens to write. Changes in technology have meant that in recent years many disabled people especially those with complex impairments are accessing documents without the need of a signature.

5.5 There are, as indicated above, half a million voters with low English literacy skills because English is not their first language. Consideration should also be made to gathering information on a voter's preferred language and then sending them election material in that language.

5.6 A significant issue is how the electoral registration forms are delivered to voters. It would not be accessible for the main method of delivery to be post unless there was sufficient "door step" follow up.

AVAILABILITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE REGISTER

6.1 It is important that a person's chosen format, if recorded during the registration process, remains confidential.

6.2 Although there could be a number of advantages in passing this information to political parties so they can deliver election literature in appropriate accessible formats the security of this information would have to be guaranteed.

BASIS FOR INDIVIDUAL REGISTRATION EG ADDRESS-BASED OR ON PERSONAL CRITERIA SUCH AS NI NUMBER OR BIRTH DATE

7.1 We believe it is likely that an addresses-based individual registration system will be more accessible for more people. This is because a similar system is already in place and does not require a person to provide additional information. The use of National Insurance numbers, for example, would add a level of unnecessary complexity.

MEANS OF ENSURING THE SECURITY OF THE REGISTER: PIN NUMBERS, ELECTORAL VOTING CARDS, SIGNATURES

8.1 Making sure that individual registration is accessible will naturally have to be balanced against the need to maintain security. Ensuring the security of the register is in everyone's interest including disabled people. This, however, should be based on a rational assessment of the security risks.

8.2 During the e-voting pilot process we noted significant differences in the length of Voter Validation Codes. [41]These are the PIN number and passwords used to vote electronically. It was felt by some local authorities that the longer the code the greater the security. Although an increase in the number of digits increased security, once they went above a certain figure the increased security became statistically irrelevant. The length of the voter validation code is an access issue. If PIN numbers are used the shortest which can guarantee security should always be used.

8.3 If signatures are used as the main way of ensuring the security of the register, other methods of identification should be possible for people who cannot write or make a mark.