UK Conservative National Disability Strategy Fails to Uphold Principles of Democracy

This morning, the UK government released their National Disability Strategy, a paper which outlines their policy focus pertaining to disabled people. A comprehensive strategy to tackle the multiple inequities that disabled people face sounds like a good thing on the surface, however it is so vague as to mean very little in reality. Few practical policies are outlined, instead the document makes generic promises to inspire change and motivate the public to understand disabled people.

Exploring every aspect of the strategy is beyond the scope of this post. The paper covers everything from access to justice, to transport, housing, and employment. This post will focus on access to elections and the continuing failure of the UK government to uphold basic democratic principles.

The right to participate in free and fair elections in order to elect a government is the principle that underpins a democratic society. The secrecy of ballots is a key aspect of democracy, as it upholds freedom of thought and protects citizens against threats and harassment based on their political beliefs. We do not question the need for secret ballots and yet many disabled people are denied this most basic of rights.

According to a 2017 survey conducted by the Electoral Commission, a number of polling stations across the country are not accessible. ^[1]“Report: Elections for everyone,” Electoral Commission, https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/report-elections-everyone Disabled voters may not be able to enter the polling station, and find that they are either turned away or asked to complete their ballot outside. This denies them their right to vote, either by preventing them from voting entirely, or forcing them to hand their completed ballot back to a polling station worker. In the latter situation, there is no way for the disabled person to know if their vote is then recorded, or if the polling station worker keeps it confidential.

For some voters, reading and completing a standard print ballot paper is an impossibility. It is a legal requirement for polling stations to present a large print copy of the ballot form and voters may take a copy of the large print ballot into the booth with them. ^[2]“Voting and elections: what you need to know,” RNIB, https://www.rnib.org.uk/sight-loss-advice/equality-rights-and-employment/voting-and-elections-what-you-need-know However, all voters are required to cast their vote on a standard print ballot. The large print copy can only be used as a reference rather than an alternative for those who are unable to complete a standard print ballot. This has a significant impact on many voters, particularly those who are registered blind or older people who may struggle to read small text. Whilst the government has released guidance which allows voters to use their own assistive devices, such as magnifiers and apps, it is up to the Returning Officer as to whether they permit the voter to make use of this adjustment. This policy does little to protect the rights of disabled voters.

Polling stations must also provide a tactile voting guide for use by blind voters, for whom reading either a standard or large print ballot is not possible. ^[3]“Accessibility on polling day,” Electoral Commission, https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/accessibility-polling-day-0 The tactile voting device is fixed to the ballot paper and contains braille numbers down the side which correspond to the names of the candidates. Staff at the polling station must firstly fix the device to the paper and then read out the candidates in the correct order.

There are a number of problems with tactile voting devices. Many polling station staff are not properly trained on how to use them, meaning that blind voters may turn up and find that they cannot make use of this adjustment. ^[4]“Turned Out 2021: the latest research into voter experiences,” RNIB, … Continue reading Furthermore, the tactile voting device still does not enable disabled people who are unable to read the ballot to vote in secret. It relies on having another person read the list of candidates in the right order, and secondly if the person is unable to see where they marked their ballot paper, they have no way of knowing if they voted for their candidate of choice.

In a May 2019 ruling, the High Court judged the tactile voting devices to not be a sufficient method of providing a confidential vote to blind voters. ^[5]“Voting device to help blind people is unlawful, High Court rules,” The Independent, … Continue reading Current provision is unlawful, ^[6]“Successful legal challenge to Government’s voting provisions,” Leigh Day, … Continue reading and the government has a responsibility to ensure that all citizens who are eligible to vote are able to participate in free and fair elections. Given this ruling and the numerous issues disabled people face, it would be reasonable to expect the government to direct significant resources to ensure that disabled people can participate in the democratic process.

So far, little has happened to support disabled people’s participation. A trial of audio voting guides was conducted at the 2021 local elections in Norfolk. This guide would read off the candidates in order, allowing a blind voter to listen to them and not rely on the Returning Officer or other polling station staff to read to them. This does not address the fundamental problem that blind voters are still required to use the tactile voting device, and that they cannot see who they voted for.

The National Disability Strategy does not go so far as to acknowledge that disabled people experience barriers when voting in elections. The paper states that “Under current rules disabled people can only get help at polling stations from another eligible voter or a close family member.” ^[7]“Part 1: practical steps now to improve disabled people’s everyday lives,” UK Government, … Continue reading It goes on to say that under the Elections Bill, disabled people will be able to receive assistance from anyone over the age of 18. It also states that the legislation will encourage Returning Officers to consider the needs of disabled people. There is no mention of reform to the provision for blind voters, or others who are unable to read standard print. There is no suggestion of alternatives to the tactile voting devices, or increased accessibility of postal voting. Perhaps more telling is the absence of any mention of the High Court ruling. They have utterly failed to recognise their responsibility to disabled voters and how current provision is unlawful.

Expanding the policy to allow for those beyond immediate family members to assist a disabled person at polling stations isn’t a directly harmful policy. It should be an option for those who feel more comfortable receiving assistance. The issue is that the government continues to put the responsibility on the disabled person to solve the access barriers, rather than taking responsibility for the failing system. There is no acknowledgement that it is impossible for some disabled people to place a confidential vote. As a result, the strategy makes no attempt to solve a problem they have not even identified. Until the government recognises that under the current system a significant number of disabled people are unable to cast a confidential vote and commits to reforming the system, we cannot claim to uphold democratic principles as a nation.

This is a failing that can be seen throughout the strategy. Supposedly new policies or procedures are referenced, ignoring the reality that they have been required by law for a number of years. Another example of this is provision of information in accessible formats. Under the Equality Act, and the Disability Discrimination Act which preceded it, reasonable adjustments must be made so that disabled people have equal access to businesses and services. A reasonable adjustment can include provision of information in alternative formats.

The government is claiming to be transforming life for disabled people through this strategy. Yet such transformations are apparently limited to making vague promises to finally uphold the legal rights of disabled people, rights they have knowingly violated throughout the last ten years. On the same day as the strategy was released, the courts ruled that the government’s failure to provide sign language interpreters for Coronavirus health briefings is a violation of the Equality Act. ^[8]“BREAKING: UK Government broke Equality Act by failing to provide a BSL interpreter for COVID data briefings, judge rules,” The Limping Chicken, … Continue reading Not only did the government fail to provide interpreters, when challenged they refused to admit responsibility, forcing the case to go to court. If anything indicates their attitude towards disabled people, it is their actions, more than a document which in 120 pages promises very little change.