Elections watchdog criticises political parties for failing on accessible manifestos

The elections watchdog has criticised political parties that failed to produce their general election manifestos in accessible formats.

The Electoral Commission has also highlighted how disabled candidates were still not able to secure government funding to support them with their access needs during the election campaign.

It raises the concerns in its report on July’s general election and May’s local elections, which was published yesterday (Wednesday).

Disability News Service reported in June how some of the main political parties fighting the general election had still not published accessible versions of their manifestos, just a week before polling day.

The worst offenders from the main parties were Reform UK, followed by the Green party, the SNP and the Conservatives.

The commission said at the time that it had previously recommended that accessible versions should be published at the same time as the main manifestos.

It says in this week’s report that political parties “routinely fail to provide information about their policies in accessible formats” and that disabled people “should have just as much time as anyone else to understand what the parties stand for”.

It also highlights how disabled election candidates still cannot access financial support to help with their access needs.

It points to the previous Access to Elected Office Fund, which was set up by the coalition government in 2012 but then closed down three years later.

A temporary fund followed in 2018, covering some elections in 2019, 2020 and 2021, before it was closed, and the last government repeatedly promised to set up a replacement.

Although similar schemes have been set up for devolved elections in Wales and Scotland, there is no support for disabled candidates at general elections or in other elections in England.

The report says: “A similar scheme could be set up for reserved elections to remove barriers to candidates engaging in the democratic process, and to ensure voters can hear from a range of campaigners.”

The report also says that more could be done to raise awareness of the support available for disabled voters in polling stations.

It says: “Although Returning Officers provided a range of accessibility equipment and support at polling stations, many people were not aware of the assistance available to them.”

Of those polling station staff who returned an Electoral Commission survey, “almost all” of them “provided most items from the list of equipment that should be provided as a minimum” for disabled voters.

Where polling stations said the minimum equipment was not provided, it was “nearly always” where the equipment was not needed, such as when the polling station did not have any parking available or did not need to have ramps.

Some polling stations went “beyond” the minimum, says the report, by providing additional support such as devices to access the ballot paper in audio format, or a hearing loop.

The commission’s research also found that almost all disabled adults (96 per cent) who voted in person said it was easy to get inside the polling station and vote.

Of those disabled people who voted in person, one in 20 said they needed additional assistance or equipment.

Of this group, about one in five (19 per cent) said the assistance or equipment they needed was not available to them at the polling station.

And about one in 10 disabled voters (nine per cent) said the way elections are run at present prevents them voting in person.

The report recommends that more is done to improve awareness of the support available for disabled voters in polling stations, including placing information on poll cards and local authority websites.

The Electoral Commission’s survey of candidates also found that more than half (55 per cent) of those who responded felt they had experienced harassment, intimidation, or abuse during the election campaign, while more than one in 10 (13 per cent) said they had had a serious problem with abuse.

Disabled candidates who responded were twice as likely to have been physically attacked, hit, or have something thrown at them compared to non-disabled candidates (10 per cent versus five per cent).

They were also slightly more likely to have received social media abuse than non-disabled candidates (60 per cent compared with 51 per cent).

An Electoral Commission spokesperson said: “On manifestos, we have a long-standing recommendation that when political parties publish manifestos, they should make sure accessible formats are available at the same time, so that disabled people have just as much time as anyone else to understand what parties stand for.”

She said that, although the report made no recommendation on the need for funding for disabled candidates, and some other areas of electoral law that need to be improved, “we continue to work closely with the UK government, including through the Accessibility of Elections Working Group convened by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to take forward other areas of work”.

A note from the editor:

Please consider making a voluntary financial contribution to support the work of DNS and allow it to continue producing independent, carefully-researched news stories that focus on the lives and rights of disabled people and their user-led organisations.

Please do not contribute if you cannot afford to do so, and please note that DNS is not a charity. It is run and owned by disabled journalist John Pring and has been from its launch in April 2009.

Thank you for anything you can do to support the work of DNS…