Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as president of the Royal Mencap Society. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, as this Bill presents the Government with a perfect opportunity to remove from electoral law some of the most offensive language used to describe disabled people, and to make a statement that such language is unacceptable. I hope that the Government will take that opportunity. Doing so will draw attention to and affirm the equal democratic rights of disabled people, particularly people with a learning disability or a disability that impairs their ability to communicate. The language that we use to refer to disability is constantly evolving and constantly a matter of dispute. Indeed, I have recently been engaged in one such dispute over the use of ““mentally handicapped””. That term has, of course, moved in recent years from being a widely used description to being widely rejected as offensive by people with a learning disability. While the language of ““mental handicap”” may still be clinging to life in some quarters, there are some words which nobody today would use and which everyone would now recognise as offensive, insulting and dehumanising. However, perhaps I should say ““everyone except lawyers””, because existing case law governing people’s legal capacity to vote specifically states that ““idiots”” cannot vote, while ““lunatics”” can vote only during their lucid moments. No doubt some archaic pieces of case law no longer matter enough to be challenged, but this one has important symbolic and practical effects. The symbolic effect is to say to people with learning disabilities and mental health problems that calling them idiots and lunatics is acceptable; if the term is in law, why should not everyone use it? The practical effect is that, even today, it is widely and mistakenly believed that people with a learning disability or mental health problems do not possess that most basic of rights in a democracy—the right to vote and have a say in who represents them and governs the country. There is evidence—for example in Scope’s report, Polls Apart—that people with visible disabilities or communication impairments who have the mental capacity to vote and the legal right to do so have been disfranchised by being turned away from polling stations. Mencap has heard from people with a learning disability who have been challenged by members of the public about their right to vote, or who have even been refused a vote. No doubt the confusion of the public, poll clerks and presiding officers could be alleviated by a clear and authoritative statement that any electoral case law referring to ““idiots”” and ““lunatics”” is not only old-fashioned and offensive, but inoperative. I understand that that statement could be made quite easily by amending the Representation of the People Act to decouple the concept of mental capacity from the concept of legal capacity, therefore making the old case law irrelevant. We have already taken great strides forward in recent years towards a clear understanding and definition of mental capacity, most notably in the Mental Capacity Act, which was steered through your Lordships’ House with such aplomb by the Minister. It ought to be straightforward enough to highlight the distinction between legal capacity to vote and mental capacity to vote. The former turns on a person’s citizenship, his age, whether he is detained in prison or—as Members of this House will be well aware—is a Peer. The latter—mental capacity—is simply a matter of a person’s ability to understand that there is an election taking place and to communicate his preference in that election in one way or another. Whatever his disability and whatever communication difficulties he may have, so long as a registered voter is able to answer the same statutory questions that all voters must be able to answer, he is entitled to vote. There should be no other test. I hope that the Minister will agree that the simple step of removing the link between mental capacity and legal capacity, and thus removing the words ““idiots”” and ““lunatics”” from existing electoral case law, would send two welcome messages: first, that such language has no place in the modern legal system, and secondly, that disabled people are equal citizens with an equal right to vote and must be treated as such.