The problem

54. At present, in order to cast a vote, an elector must—unless s/he has been granted an absent vote—vote in person between specified hours on the appointed polling day. The vote must be cast at the polling station which has been designated to cover the area in which that elector is registered. The voter must mark his or her choice on a ballot paper which is then put into a ballot box. An elector may apply for an absent vote on one of a number of grounds, principally where the elector is a service[115] or overseas voter, or is unable to vote unaided because of some disability, or is unlikely to be able to vote in person because of the nature of their occupation, or has changed address, or is likely to be unable to vote in person because of his or her "circumstances on the date of the poll" (e.g. because of being away on holiday or on business or ill).[116] Applications on grounds other than the last generally require some form of attestation and can remain valid for an indefinite number of elections, while applications arising from difficulties specifically on the date of the poll apply for that election only. Broadly speaking, absent voters can apply for a postal vote or to vote by proxy, though any application from someone abroad at the time of the poll must be for a vote by proxy. Applications have to be received at least 11 working days before polling day, except for duly attested applications based on unforeseen health grounds which must be received by 6 working days before the poll.

55. It has been argued that these relatively restricted ways open to voters to cast their vote mean that a number of voters do not get round to voting in practice, either because it is virtually impossible for them to do so or because they find it to be too much trouble. A number of suggestions for reform were included in the DETR consultation process or have been put forward to us for consideration. The principal ones are as follows:

-  changes to polling hours

-  changes in the day of the week used for polling

-  placing polling stations in different kinds of location

-  allowing voters a choice of polling station

-  introducing mobile polling stations

-  allowing 'early' voting at one or more polling stations (i.e. voting before the main polling day)

-  reducing or removing the restrictions on absent voting

-  introducing 'all-postal' ballots

-  electronic voting.

56. It is difficult or impossible to make any close estimate of how many people do not vote for any of these reasons. No one believes that the problem of low turnout will be completely cured by making the physical process of casting a vote easier any more than it will be cured by improving the accuracy of the register.[117] Nevertheless, changes in technology and in modern society (such as working patterns and mobility) mean that the basic model of voting in a local polling station may not be the most convenient method for many voters who do vote. On the grounds then of both the greater convenience which might be available both to those who currently do vote and of the small increase in turnout it might generate we conclude that the time is right to consider a range of possible reforms to the physical process of casting a vote.

57. We consider some of the possible changes in more detail below. But we must stress immediately one general point. Change must not be allowed to threaten the integrity of the election process. Reforms must therefore be approached cautiously and changes which are based on visions of what new technology can offer must be assessed not simply on the basis that they are 'modern' or 'exciting' but on whether they are safe and effective. Change must not be introduced to a system which works well simply for change's sake.

Polling hours

58. At present, polling hours are 7am to 10pm for parliamentary elections and 8am to 9pm for local elections.[118] The extension of polling time from 9 pm to 10pm was introduced in 1970.[119] The Home Office indicated that they knew of no research into whether the shorter opening hours for local elections affected turnout,[120] though SOLACE thought there was probably very little effect. SOLACE also thought that the extra hour at the beginning of the day for national elections was more used than the one at the end.[121]

59. Local authority witnesses all suggested that there would be administrative advantages in harmonising national and local election hours, proposing that opening hours from 7am to 9pm would provide sufficient convenience without reducing turnout.[122] Dr Butler also queried whether the 9-10pm slot was worthwhile.[123] The Home Office reported that they received few representations on this, though those they did receive were generally calling for an extension to local elections hours rather than a reduction in national election hours.[124] Presumably the overall costs to local authorities would rise from any such harmonisation, since the extra hour proposed for local elections is likely to come into play more frequently than the reduced hour for national elections. At the same time we are uncertain that any reduction in voting opportunity in national elections would be desirable. Nevertheless, we can see that there would be some benefits in harmonising hours of voting in terms of administration and in reducing possible confusion to voters. On balance, we recommend that harmonised voting hours of 7am to 9pm be brought in for local and national elections.

Polling day

60. The choice of polling day is a more important and more controversial issue. There is no statutory or other requirement for elections to be held on a Thursday, but this has nevertheless been the standard practice for national and local elections, at least in England, since the second world war.[125] But one must question whether it is the most convenient day for the voters, given that 91 per cent of employed people work on weekdays, 24 per cent on Saturdays and only 13 per cent on Sundays.[126]

61. Most continental European countries vote at the weekend (generally Sunday) and a number of witnesses advocated moving elections to the weekend or at least experimenting with such a change. Dr Butler and Professor Blackburn both pointed to the possibility of increased turnout with weekend elections,[127] while the AEA noted that the present system "no longer reflects the working or social patterns of the majority of the community".[128] Mr Gardner, for the Labour Party, thought that international and historical comparisons pointed to advantages in weekend voting, and the Liberal Democrats favoured experimentation with weekend voting.[129]

62. Holding elections on a Thursday means that church halls are generally available for use as polling stations and that local authority officials are available to act as the necessary election staff. But holding elections on a weekend would have the advantage that school premises would be available without having to close the school for the day; Mr Gardner suggested that headmasters were generally becoming more reluctant to having to lose a school day at election time.[130] In terms of staff, weekend elections would be more expensive, though less disruptive to other local authority work.[131]

63. But weekends present other problems too. Most obviously there are potential problems arising from the fact that both Saturdays[132] and (more significantly numerically) Sundays are days of religious observance for many people. The Home Office paper noted objections on this count from both churches and individuals, and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices referred to similar problems.[133] Weekend voting could only accommodate such objections by having the polls open on both Saturday and Sunday, which would be more expensive. Of course it can be argued that religious observance of Saturdays and Sundays is not what it was in earlier years, and that those who felt unable on grounds of religious observance to vote on a Saturday or Sunday could be allowed a postal vote or accommodated in other ways.[134] However, it is not necessarily the case that weekends would be more convenient for the general population either since, as Lord Parkinson suggested for the Conservatives, people have less of a routine at weekends and might go away for the whole weekend.[135] People have more of a routine on normal weekdays and might find it easier to plan a visit to a polling station—particularly if other changes were made affecting the locations of polling stations[136]—into that routine.

64. On balance, we see sufficient potential advantage in weekend voting for it to be worth experimenting to see if it would actually generate the increased turnout hoped for. If it were decided to experiment in this way then an immediate opportunity is presented by the 1999 European elections, since the votes for these elections are not counted until the Sunday anyway (in order to tie in with the counting for those countries which vote on Sunday). The Government, following the DETR consultation process and the Home Office Working Party's study, have now proposed that legislation be introduced to allow experimentation with polling days (and hours)[137] though they do not support the idea of using the 1999 European elections for such an experiment.[138]

Absent voting: deadlines

65. As noted above, the latest date for applications for absent votes to be received is eleven days before polling day (with a later deadline for those falling ill). This deadline was introduced in 1997, the previous deadline having been 13 days before polling day.[139] The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives stated that "Although this was an improvement, it was a timid one which does not take sufficient account of the fact that most, if not all, returning officers now organise elections with the assistance of computerised election management systems" and argued that it was now possible to offer a shorter deadline; they suggested nine working days for postal votes, which would allow sufficient time for the generation of envelopes etc, posting of the ballot papers and their return;[140] this evidence rather contrasted with that of the Home Office who told us that "electoral practitioners' advice ... in the run up to the 1997 general election was that the final dates for application were now just about as late as they could be ...".[141] The AEA also suggested that the deadline could be moved more in favour of the elector, possibly as far as receiving applications up to the six working day deadline currently already in force for late sickness.[142]

66. As just noted, the minimum period required reflects the need for time to process applications and for the postage time. But, as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives pointed out, these constraints do not apply in the case of applications for proxy votes. Although proxy votes are in some ways less satisfactory than postal votes in that they do not preserve the secrecy of the ballot for the elector to the same extent, and there may be greater opportunities for fraud with a proxy vote,[143] they nevertheless provide voting opportunities in circumstances where postal votes do not, such as for people temporarily overseas. SOLACE suggest that the deadline for proxy votes could be shorter than that for postal votes, possibly as short as 2 or 3 days. This would allow people to obtain a vote if their circumstances altered too late for them to apply for a postal vote.

67. There is everything to be said for allowing applications for absent votes to be received as close to the election as is administratively feasible, given the way individual electors' travelling plans and other circumstances can change. The importance of the absent voting provisions is illustrated by the fact that over one million votes (around 4% of all valid votes) were cast in this way at the 1997 general election.[144] We therefore recommend that the Home Office discuss with electoral administrators how much further the deadlines for (a) postal vote applications and (b) proxy vote applications could be reduced, and take the necessary steps to implement the agreed new timetables.

Absent voting: entitlement

68. As already noted, absent votes may only be granted on the basis of entitlement on one of the grounds laid down in the Representation of the People Act 1985. For indefinite entitlements these grounds mostly cover illness or disability or the nature of the voter's work, and the grounds have to be duly attested by some other relevant person, such as a doctor or employer. For an application for a single election however, all that is necessary is for the registration officer to be "satisfied that the applicant's circumstances on the date of the poll will be or are likely to be such that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person at the polling station allotted".[145] This means that an absence due to a temporary work commitment or holiday is sufficient, and there is in practice no serious way in which the claimed ground for entitlement can be checked by the registration officer.[146]

69. It is a small step from this situation to proposing that all restrictions on entitlement should be removed, so that absent voting could take place on demand. This possibility was canvassed in the DETR's consultation paper but the Government have not yet formed a view on the point.[147]

70. Local authority bodies argued that registration as an absent voter on demand was both feasible and, broadly speaking, desirable.[148] They noted also, as had the DETR, that some extra cost might be involved.[149] The main political parties all supported the idea that absent voting should become available on demand.[150] We agree with this view. Quite apart from the issue of whether there is any need to restrict access to postal or proxy votes as a matter of principle, we were told also that the present rules were confusing[151] and that attestation requirements for indefinite applications caused difficulties in some cases and put electors off. We therefore recommend that the various grounds for entitlement for an absent vote be abolished, and that electors be allowed to apply for an absent vote on demand.

71. A number of further points need to be discussed. The first is that, if the recommendation that absent voting be allowed on demand is not accepted, then there are still dissatisfactions with the present attestation procedures required. In particular there is dissatisfaction with the requirement for attestation of applications for indefinite absent votes on medical grounds. There is continuing anecdotal evidence that some people are faced with demands by their GP for charges for giving the required attestation.[152] The Home Office were quite clear in their evidence that GPs are not allowed to charge.[153] Abolishing the specified grounds for allowing an absent vote would of course end this problem, but we recommend in the meantime that the Government take steps to remind all GPs that they are obliged to deal with applications for absent voting free of charge.

72. The second additional issue is whether enough steps are taken to bring absent voting rights to the attention of electors. The DETR consultation paper noted that encouraging greater use of absent vote entitlements could improve turnout and stated that the Government "wished all authorities to do all they can to publicise the existence of the absent vote, either in material distributed with the registration form or in separate campaigns".[154] The Conservative Party evidence reported that "Few local authorities make any significant effort to increase the number of postal and proxy votes except perhaps among the student population and sending forms in bulk supplies to residential care homes".[155] The Association of Electoral Administrators supported the principle of more active promotion of indefinite absent vote entitlements, since these reduced the workload at election time, and indicated that encouraging applications did produce results.[156] We support the idea that registration officers should more actively promote take-up of absent voting entitlements, particularly those for indefinite entitlements; we suggest also that appropriate methods for doing this should be included in any mandatory minimum standards for registration introduced under our recommendation at paragraph 35 above.

73. A further point raised in the evidence was the possibility of taking the principle of absent voting much further still, to the point of introducing all-postal voting. This idea was canvassed in the DETR consultation paper,[157] and local authority bodies referred to it as an option, if only for experimentation at local council level at this stage.[158] We have not received enough evidence to form a view on this proposal, but we note that the Government now propose that legislation be introduced permitting experimentation on this at local level.[159]

74. Finally, we note that absent voting—whether in the form of postal or proxy voting—has given rise occasionally to worries about abuse and fraud. We discuss this in Section E below.

Early voting

75. Partly in order to reduce the possibility of increased fraud which could be generated by increased use of absent voting, but also on more general grounds,[160] many witnesses argued that in addition to making absent voting easier a system of 'early voting' should be introduced.

76. Under such a system voters would be able to cast their vote in one or more polling venues in a constituency or electoral district, which would open in advance of the main polling day. This would be aimed at assisting voters who knew they would find it difficult to vote at their own polling station on the main polling day, although in practice it would be open to any voter. In order to prevent double voting, the record kept at the early polling station of who had voted would have to be distributed—either manually or electronically—to each regular polling station before these opened on the main polling day.

77. A particular potential benefit could arise for voters with various kinds of physical disability. As a number of witnesses suggested, it would be possible for the designated early station or stations to be carefully selected and fitted out to be especially well suited to those with walking or sight difficulties or others who might experience problems in their local polling station. (It must be stressed however that this can only be a part of the measures necessary to assist those with disabilities; it should remain the objective to enable such persons to vote in the same way as everyone else at their local polling station if they wish to. We discuss other ways of achieving this at paragraphs 85-93 below.

78. A number of other countries already have such a system in one form or another.[161] In a sense the present postal vote system in the UK is a form of early voting, the difference being that the early votes are posted to the polling authorities rather than handed in in person at a polling station. Although it was not thought that an early voting system would—any more than any other single reform—by itself produce any dramatic increase in turnout,[162] the main political parties all supported early voting at least on a trial basis.[163] So also did the representatives of the electoral officials.[164] We consider that early voting facilities at convenient locations, specially adapted to assist those with disabilities but nevertheless open to all, should be introduced.

79. There remains the question of the length of time for which such a station should be open in advance. It would be theoretically possible to open a station for early voting as soon after the closing date for nominations has passed as is needed for the printing of the ballot papers. However, many witnesses drew attention to the undesirability of allowing voting to begin so early that such voters would not be responding to the same campaign as those voting on the main polling day. British election campaigns are relatively short, and if a significant number of voters were to vote a week or more ahead of polling day then they would not have had an opportunity to respond to the often quite important last stages of the campaign.[165] We consider that early voting stations should not open until the week in which the main polling day falls—i.e. the Monday before the main polling day. In order to prevent any effect on the rest of the election, exit polling of early voters should be prohibited.[166]

Choice of polling stations and their location

80. In some countries an elector voting in person is not limited to voting only at the particular polling station designated for his or her area. Instead, the voter can choose to vote at any station within the constituency.[167] To prevent double voting, such a system requires the electoral list, marked up as polling day progresses with an indication of who has voted, to be available simultaneously (in practice therefore on-line on a computer network) at every polling station in the constituency.[168] There have been calls for such a system to be introduced in the UK.[169]

81. The particular benefit of such a system would be that voters who have traditionally found it difficult to attend at the sorts of location currently used as polling stations could be offered a different kind of location. At present, polling stations are typically located in such buildings as schools and church halls. The locations are kept constantly under review by administrators,[170] and recent experiments have been made[171] with siting polling stations at such locations as supermarkets. However, although a supermarket may be a more convenient location for some voters, it might equally well be a less convenient location for many others; it might even have a negative effect if shoppers from outside the relevant electoral ward try to vote at such a polling station only to be told that they cannot because it is the polling station only for those resident in the ward in which the supermarket is sited.[172] A similar situation would arise with a commuter railway station. If however the voter was able to choose the particular polling station which suited him or her best then much more flexibility could be shown in choosing locations: for example if polling stations were placed in a local railway station and in a local shopping area as well as in the local school or church hall then a wider range of electors could vote in a way which suited their particular circumstances.

82. There was support for such a system from local government and electoral officials.[173] SOLACE however reported that some returning officers saw little need for such a system since most polling districts were already quite small and judged that the principal effect would be to displace where people voted rather than to increase turnout.[174] The main political parties saw possible benefits in a system allowing a choice of polling station; the Labour Party advocated a system whereby a voter could vote in any polling station in the constituency.[175] The Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats laid emphasis on the requirement that no such system should be brought in unless proper safeguards were introduced against fraud,[176] a caveat with which we concur entirely.

83. Given the advances which have been made in the relevant technology, and the extent to which registration officers' work is already dependent on keeping information in electronic form, it should be possible to devise a reliable system which would allow voters to be offered a choice of polling stations. Greater computerisation of registration work, on a standardised basis across authorities, should already be part of moves towards the rolling register, whose introduction we have already recommended. We recommend that the increased computerisation of the work of registration officers should progress in such a way as to allow registers to be available and marked up at polling stations throughout a constituency on a common basis. When reliable technology is in place and tested and proven, but not before, we recommend that voters should be able to vote at any polling station in the constituency. This will in turn allow returning officers to designate a wider range of venues as polling stations, including such places as railway stations and supermarkets. We do not at this stage envisage allowing voters to vote outside their own constituency; the technological requirements and expense would be that much greater, and additional problems would be encountered such as the need to hold ballot papers for a number of different constituencies at a single polling station.

Electronic voting

84. A number of witnesses drew attention to the possibility of using some form of electronic voting, using touch pads or other techniques, whether in a single polling station or under a system allowing a choice of stations.[177] Such technology is apparently in use in some other countries, and might hold particular attractions for some younger voters. We did not examine these possibilities in any detail in this inquiry, or see such equipment in operation, and we are not therefore in a position to assess its usefulness or its reliability. We do not think however that there is yet any significant demand for electronic voting and we judge that it would not yet be welcomed or trusted by a significant proportion of the electorate. We do not therefore recommend experimentation with electronic voting, though we accept that in the longer term this may require re-examination.[178]

Assistance for those with disabilities

85. We have already discussed ways in which the electoral process might be improved for disabled people in terms of a simplified system of absent voting and the introduction of fully accessible early voting facilities. We must again stress, however, that the objective must be to enable all those disabled people who so wish to vote in person at their local polling station and not to feel excluded in any way from the mainstream of political life; we now turn to some other ways in which this might be achieved. We note and welcome the fact that consolidation and improvement of advice on disability issues is already being proposed by the Home Office Working Party.[179] The importance of this issue was demonstrated by the estimate provided by SCOPE that there could be between 10,000 and 15,000 people per constituency who have a physical disability which affects their locomotion,[180] and the RNIB's evidence that there are nearly one million blind and partially sighted people, and a further 700,000 people who have difficulties in reading newsprint.[181]

86. Assistance at the polling station The current rules allow a voter who is physically incapable of voting because of blindness or some other physical disability to apply to the presiding officer at the polling station to mark the ballot paper on his or her behalf.[182] In practice, for example, this may involve a polling station official taking a ballot paper to the voter at the door of the polling station and returning it to the ballot box.[183] Mr Marshall of the Association of Electoral Administrators told us that "there is an increasing awareness of the needs of the disabled when they go to vote" but that "there is a great variation up and down the country" in training for presiding officers in handling the problems of disabled electors.[184] Mr Morris of SOLACE felt that the limitations imposed by the existing rules on the powers of returning officers to allow a flexible approach towards these problems could be overcome by applying "commonsense" solutions on the day.[185] We conclude that the Home Office guidance to returning officers should recommend improved training of presiding officers in relation to the difficulties faced by disabled people, including a briefing prior to each election, so as to encourage them to allow maximum flexibility within the current rules.

87. Access to polling stations Section 18 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 places an obligation on local authorities to designate as polling stations only places which are accessible to disabled electors, so far as is reasonable and practicable. Evidence of the extent to which local authorities have failed in this duty was provided by the surveys conducted by volunteers on behalf of SCOPE at the 1992 and 1997 general elections.[186] For example, the 1997 survey which covered 1,272 polling stations in 303 constituencies revealed that 94 per cent of polling stations had one or more access problems, 82 per cent had steps with no ramps and 46 per cent had no ballot box placed at an accessible level. The types of premises used as polling stations which gave rise to particular concerns were village halls, schools and, in particular, leisure centres, of which there were no fully accessible examples in the 1997 survey.[187]

88. Since 1993 the Home Office has issued guidance to returning officers on how to conduct an accessibility audit of a polling station to assess a range of factors, including approach routes, steps, lighting and hazards.[188] Witnesses from the AEA and SOLACE described the co-operation which exists at local level in their own areas between returning officers and disability groups to conduct accessibility audits but admitted that the situation varied among local authorities.[189] Jane Enticott of SCOPE reported that the level of response among local electoral administrators to the guidance on accessibility audits varied "very, very widely indeed".[190] She cited Merton as an example of what could be achieved, where "through a variety of access audits they had managed to get 75 out of 76 polling stations to be fully accessible".[191] We noted, in particular, the practice adopted by Northampton Borough Council where a telephone "hot-line" is made available prior to and on election days, to ensure that access problems can be notified to election staff and acted upon immediately.[192] We recognise the progress which has been made at the local level in some areas through co-operation between returning officers and disability groups (and, in particular, the work of SCOPE) but we are concerned that best practice is not routinely followed. We recommend that the Home Office guidance to returning officers on the conduct of accessibility audits makes use of national standards and suggest that the audits be carried out, wherever possible, in close co-operation with local disability groups. In particular, we recommend the establishment of local telephone "hot-lines" to ensure that access problems can be acted upon immediately.

89. The evidence gathered by SCOPE has understandably led them to the conclusion that accessibility audits should be conducted in accordance with compulsory national standards.[193] Witnesses from the AEA and SOLACE argued against compulsion on the grounds that they are increasingly reliant upon the use of buildings which are not within local authority ownership and whose owners are not willing to allow the buildings to be adapted for occasional use.[194] Compulsory standards would also be difficult to apply when there is no alternative to the use of temporary premises, such as caravans, as Lord Parkinson pointed out.[195] The Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures concluded that compulsory standards should not be imposed at national level as "there will always be a greater understanding [at the local level] of how the competing requirements of all electors in a polling district may best be served".[196] We concur with this view, particularly as the full implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will require that the owners of all premises from which services to the public are provided ensure that their premises are accessible.

90. Grants Grants are available from the Home Office to local authorities for 50 per cent of the cost of providing temporary ramps at polling stations and for 80 per cent of the cost of providing wheelchair accessible polling booths. Expenditure on temporary ramps between the 1992 and 1997 general elections was some £225,000 but no figures are available for expenditure on accessible polling booths.[197] We were disturbed to learn from SCOPE of "many reported incidents of returning officers who were either unaware of the grants or claimed to have been asking persistently and were persistently told that actually the budget was spent".[198] They also reported instances of purpose-built ramps being discarded in favour of dangerous wooden alternatives.[199] SCOPE have argued that the level of grants should be increased to 100 per cent of the cost of providing both temporary ramps and accessible polling booths[200] and we understand that, in the latter case, the Home Office is considering this proposal with the Treasury. The Home Office position is that the provision of part grants for temporary ramps reflects the fact that local authorities are able to employ them on occasions other than elections, although it is considering extending the part grant system to permanent ramps.[201] We believe that in this important area of the exercise of democratic rights the cost of providing 100% grants is justified. In particular, full grants should be available for the cost of equipping all polling stations with polling booths accessible to the disabled. We also urge the Home Office to improve its advice to returning officers on the availability of grants and the deployment of the equipment. Returning officers should work closely with local disability groups, who are indeed the experts, on access to and the layout of polling stations.

91. Blind and partially sighted voters We were pleased to note from the RNIB's evidence that Home Office guidance has contributed to improving attitudes to blind and partially sighted voters among election staff.[202] However, there remain a number of areas where the current rules are unhelpful. At present, the provisions of the 1983 Representation of the People Act suggest that assistance in completing the ballot paper can be provided only to registered blind persons by polling station staff or by a companion who is registered in the same constituency. As Mr Thomas of the RNIB pointed out, there are many unregistered blind people and also registered and non-registered partially sighted people who may require assistance.[203] The issue is likely to be of particular importance to an older partially-sighted person with additional disabilities. We therefore recommend that the Home Office take any necessary steps to ensure that assistance by polling station staff and companions may be provided to all blind and partially-sighted persons who require it and that the companion providing assistance may be registered in any constituency.

92. Mr Thomas also brought to our attention a number of practical ways in which voting in person can be made easier for blind and partially sighted people. These included large- print ballot papers, large-print reference copies of the ballot form, Braille and large-print templates, tape recordings listing candidates in order on the ballot, and a system used in Manchester of folding the ballot paper with the polling clerk reading out the names in sequence within each individual fold.[204] The Home Office pointed out that the rules currently prevent presiding officers from introducing mechanical aids to assist blind or disabled voters.[205] We also recognise the theoretical possibility of identifying how a blind or partially-sighted person voted if only a limited number of large-print ballot papers were produced. We believe, however, that as a minimum the size and clarity of all ballot papers, including the type size for the candidate's description, should be improved with a large print reference copy displayed in each polling station. The Home Office should also pilot the use of Braille and large print templates. We therefore welcome the announcement that, subject to legislative opportunity, the Government now intend to make possible the introduction of polling aids for disabled people generally.[206] We also note that the Registration of Political Parties Bill provides for party logos to be displayed on the ballot paper. This provision should be of assistance both to the partially sighted and those with learning disabilities if the logos are reproduced with sufficient clarity.

93. Mobile polling stations One innovative solution to the difficulties experienced by those who have difficulty getting to a polling station is to bring the ballot box to them in the form of a mobile polling station.[207] Where this facility is provided in other countries it is usually limited to visiting locations such as old people's homes, convalescent homes, and hospitals,[208] although in Denmark[209] and Russia[210] a mobile ballot box is taken to the homes of voters who have registered as being unfit to travel. The idea was welcomed by SCOPE, MIND and the RNIB,[211] although the Home Office raised possible difficulties over the security and secrecy of the ballot, control of electoral abuse and facilities for candidates to exercise their statutory rights to observe proceedings.[212] SOLACE were concerned about the additional costs involved for what, they felt, could only bring a modest increase in turnout.[213] The AEA saw the proposal to visit old people's homes as a means of overcoming the problems of the possible abuse of absent voting procedures at such places[214] and supported a pilot project. We believe that every practical option should be explored to enable disabled people and others with mobility problems to exercise their right to vote in person and recommend that a pilot exercise to assess the feasibility and cost of mobile polling stations should be undertaken. We therefore welcome the inclusion of mobile polling in the list of possible experiments for which the Home Office Working Party have proposed enabling legislation.

116  Representation of the People Act 1985 ss. 6 and 7. Back

117  See for example Appendix 10, para 4.15 (Local Government Association); see also information supplied by MORI (see List of unprinted memoranda). Back

118  Though if local elections are held on the same day as national elections then the national election hours apply for the local elections also. Back

119  King-Hall Paper No. 5(Hansard Society, Feb 1998) p. 7. Back

120  Appendix 1, para 5.17. Back

121  Appendix 6. Back

122  Q 288 (SOLACE and AEA); Appendix 12, section 13 (Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors). Back

123  Q 837. Back

124  Appendix 1, para 5.17. Back

125  See Appendix 1 paragraphs 5.1-5.11; Dr Butler told us that the reason Thursdays became the standard day in the first half of the century was because it allowed each of the three main parties to book the town hall for a final election meeting on one evening in the final week (Q 81). Back

126  Figures for 1998 (Office for National Statistics: Labour Force Survey database). Back

127  King-Hall Paper No. 5 p. 7; Q 78. Back

128  AEA paper ELA 3. Back

129  Q 444 and Q443. Back

130  Q 444; see also memorandum by Mr Richard Heller (see List of unprinted memoranda). Back

131  Appendix 6 (SOLACE); Appendix 5, para 2.15 (AEA); Appendix 12 (ACSS). Back

132  The Board of Deputies of British Jews indicated to us that the Sabbath period of observance runs from nightfall on Friday to nightfall on Saturday (ELA 40). Back

133  Appendix 1 para 5.15; for papers from the Northern Ireland and Scottish Offices see List of unprinted memoranda. Back

134  E.g. by a system of 'early voting' see para 75f below. Back

135  Q 442. Back

136  Such as placing polling stations at commuter railway stations. Back

137  See Cm. 4014 para 4.20, and Working Party interim report. Back

138  On the grounds that it would be difficult to assess the effect of the change of day because of the need to distinguish that effect from any effects of the introduction of the new regional list voting system. Back

139  Appendix 1, para 4.3 and Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1997. Back

140  Appendix 6. Back

141  Appendix 1 para 4.8. Back

142  Appendix 5 para 2.17; see also Appendix 10 (LGA). Back

143  See discussion in Section E below. Back

144  Appendix 1, Table 7. Back

145  RPA 1985 s. 7(1). Back

146  Until 1990, applications for an absent vote at a particular election had required attestation by another person under the Representation of the People Regulations 1986 (S.I., 1986, No 1081, regulation 66). This requirement was abolished by amending regulations in 1990, except for late applications on health grounds or on the grounds of employment in connection with the election (S.I., 1990, No 520, regulation 21). Back

147  DETR consultation paper paragraph 3.35; see also Cm. 4014 para 4.23 and Q 554. Back

148  Appendix 6 and Q 291 (SOLACE); Appendix 5 (AEA); Appendix 10 (LGA). Back

149  Appendix 12, section 13 (Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors). Back

150  QQ 445-446. Back

151  See memorandum from Leeds City Council (see List of unprinted memoranda). Back

152  See Appendix 7 (Labour Party); Appendix 8 (Conservative Party); Members of the Committee have also come across examples of this in their constituencies. Back

153  Appendix 1 para 4.7; see also Q 556-559. Back

154  See para 3.34. Back

155  Appendix 8, section 6. Back

156  Appendix 5 para 2.16; Q 291. Back

157  Op. cit, para 3.36. Back

158  See Appendix 5, para 2.18 (AEA); Appendix 12, section 13 (ACSS). Back

159  Cm. 4014 para 4.20. Back

160  Such as the fact that there will always be a number of people for whom the difficulties in voting in person on the main polling day only arise after the application deadline for absent votes has passed. If polling day were moved to a Saturday or a Sunday then early voting could also help those who had difficulty in voting on those days because of religious obligations. Back

161  Including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Sweden and the USA: see Appendix 5, section 5 (AEA). Back

162  The Liberal Democrats cited a Texas example where only very marginal gains appeared to have been generated (Appendix 9 and Q 447). Back

163  Appendix 8 and Q 450 (Conservative Party); Appendix 7 and Q 451 (Labour Party); Appendix 9 and Q 448 (Liberal Democrats). Back

164  Appendix 6 and Q 294 (SOLACE); Appendix 5 and Q 294 (AEA). Back

165  See QQ 84-88 (Dr Butler). Back

166  See Appendix 6 (SOLACE). Back

167  Or, potentially, at a station in a different constituency. Back

168  A theoretical alternative could involve a requirement for voters to be issued with a polling card in the form of a swipe card, which would record whether it had already been used (Q 296, SOLACE). Back

169  Appendix 1 para 6.19; see also DETR Consultation Paper paras 3.25 f. Back

170  See Appendix 1 para 6.2-6.5 (Home Office) and QQ 308-311 (AEA and SOLACE). Back

171  For example in Croydon, Dudley, and Rye in the 1998 local elections (see Official Report 15 June 1998 col 65 WA). Back

172  QQ 305-308 (AEA); Q 302 (SOLACE). Back

173  Appendix 12 (ACSS); Appendix 10 para 4.14 (LGA). Back

174  Appendix 6. Back

175  Appendix 7 and Q 4547. Back

176  Q 452 and Appendix 8 (Conservative Party); Q 543 (Liberal Democrats). Back

177  See DETR Consultation Paper para 3.37f., Appendix 6 and QQ 304 and 345 (SOLACE); Appendix 10 para 4.14 (Local Government Association); Leeds City Council (see List of unprinted memoranda). Back

178  A less adventurous step would be the introduction of electronic counting machines for ballot papers, something on which the 1991 Home Affairs Committee recommended trials in its Third Report, Session 1991-92, HC 49. Back

179  Home Office Working Party interim report, August 1998. Back

180  Q 154. Back

181  Q 157 and Appendix 4. Back

182  Appendix 1, para 8.3. Back

183  Q 322. Back

184  Q 321. Back

185  Q 324. Back

186  Polls Apart: Disabled People and the 1992 General Election, Jane Enticott, Pauline Graham and Brian Lamb; Polls Apart 2:Disabled People and the 1997 General Election, Jane Enticott, Julie Minns and Nicky Philpott.  Back

187  Q 200. Back

188  Appendix 1, para 8.7 and annex G. Back

189  Q 318. Back

190  Q 202. Back

191  Q 201. Back

192  Appendix 6. Back

193  Q 202. Back

194  QQ 312-318. Back

195  Q455. Back

196  Appendix 1, para 8.23. Back

197  Appendix 1, paras 8.8-8.10. Back

198  Q 204. Back

199  Q 204. Back

200  Polls Apart 2, p 59. Back

201  Appendix 1, paras 8.21-8.22. Back

202  Appendix 4, para 7.2. Back

203  See 1983 Act Schedule 1 Rule 38; Appendix 4 (RNIB) paras 6.1-7.1; Appendix 1 para 8.3; QQ 215-217 (Mr Thomas, RNIB). Back

204  Appendix 4 and Q 217. Back

205  Appendix 1, para 8.20. Back

206  Home Office Working Party Interim report, August 1998 Back

207  The idea of a mobile station has been raised also in a wider context, with suggestions that it might not be limited only to circumstances where it would be helpful to sick or disabled people. However, the possible benefits to other voters of such a system should be achievable instead through the introduction of a greater choice of polling stations as recommended earlier. Mobile stations must raise greater issues of security and their use should be kept to a minimum. Back

208  Appendix 1, para 6.22 Back

209  Appendix 5, para 5.7 (AEA). Back

210  As witnessed by Mr Bill Etherington MP at the regional and local elections in December 1995 (see Appendix 18). Back

211  QQ 191, 199 and 211. Back

212  Appendix 1, para 6.23. Back

213  Appendix 6. Back

214  Q 303; see para 96f. below. Back