Julie Minns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Too many disabled people reported being unable to vote at last year’s general election. Will the Minister ensure that electoral administrators are reminded of their obligations under equality law to ensure that disabled people can exercise their right to vote independently and in secret?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Elections (Accessibility for Blind Voters) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of audio and tactile measures at polling stations for the purpose of enabling blind voters to vote independently and in secret; to require the Secretary of State to take steps to identify, develop and implement new accessible voting solutions for blind voters; to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the arrangements for postal voting in respect of accessibility for blind voters and to implement any recommendations of that review; and for connected purposes. I first began work on this issue in the 1990s. Sadly, I am not so young for that work to have been a school project, but rather it was an excellent campaign led by the disability charity Scope, for which I had the privilege of working at that time. Scope’s “Polls Apart” report on the 1997 general election shone a light on the many different ways disabled people were denied their democratic right to vote. From archaic medical approvals for postal voting to steps at polling stations, the barriers to voting—and everyday life—were and remain very real. The “Polls Apart” report that I co-authored with my colleagues Jane Enticott and Nicky Philpott, informed by the excellent campaigning work of Olivia Marks-Woldman, made a number of recommendations for reform. Indeed, the former Member for Nottingham East Mr John Heppell presented a ten-minute rule Bill—the Disability Discrimination (Provision of Voting Facilities) Bill—that sought to enact many of those recommendations. The “Polls Apart” report found that a staggering 94% of polling stations surveyed on the day of the 1997 general election were inaccessible to disabled people who wanted to vote independently. This led to some being unable to vote entirely, while others physically injured themselves trying to open impossibly heavy doors or navigate gates designed without thought for wheelchair users—all in pursuit of trying to exercise their right to cast a vote. The report called on the Government to review the legislation for disabled people and the Home Office guidance to returning officers with a view to removing the barriers that prevented disabled people from exercising their right to vote independently and in secret—a right that has been enshrined for over 150 years, since the Ballot Act 1872. I am proud of the work I did for Scope all those years ago, and I would genuinely love to stand before the House and tell hon. Members that all the issues we identified have been rectified. Many were, but nearly three decades on, too many remain. John from my constituency of Carlisle has glaucoma, and like many partially sighted people he had difficulty casting his vote in secret at last year’s general election. With his guide dog, John headed to the polling station on 4 July, where staff escorted him to the booth and read aloud the candidates’ names, because for those who cannot see a ballot paper, it is impossible to read and mark one independently. With no tactile device provided to enable John to read the ballot paper, he asked the clerk to fold it between candidates’ names and used the fold creases as a guide, relying on his memory to select his preferred candidate. At first glance, this may seem like an adequate workaround, but we must ask ourselves: why should voters with sight loss like John have to settle for a situation where they cannot guarantee the privacy or accuracy of their vote, and where solutions are available? John’s experience is not an aberration. Across the country, blind and partially sighted voters are still confronted with barriers to voting independently. The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s “Turned Out” report on the 2024 general election revealed that just a quarter of blind and partially sighted people felt the current system allowed them to vote independently and in secret. The same report found that only half of blind and partially sighted people were satisfied with their voting experience, and 73% did not know they could request reasonable adjustments at their local polling station. Many blind voters struggle to get the information they need in an accessible format, forcing them to either tell another person their vote or remain disenfranchised. Blind voters report feeling humiliated and let down by the system when having to share their vote out loud in public and in some cases not being certain who they voted for. Our democracy is all the poorer for this, and that is why this Bill seeks to ensure that all voters with sight loss are consistently able to access information about the election and candidates independently, and that when voting they can, without assistance, review the candidates on the ballot paper, reliably find and mark their chosen candidate, and be in sole control of the secrecy of their vote. This is not out of reach: the technology exists and the solutions are low-cost and effective. For example, tactile overlays placed on top of the ballot combined with an audio recording of the candidate list allow blind voters to easily navigate and mark the ballot paper with autonomy, dignity and certainty. In a recent UK trial, audio and tactile-accessible voting solutions enabled 93% of participants to vote independently and in secret. Currently, however, these modest solutions are not routinely available at our polling stations. As it is, the law puts the onus on the blind and partially sighted person to pre-book their vote by making contact with the electoral authority and requesting specific adaptations—requests that may or may not be granted. The vast majority of blind and partially sighted people do not know these provisions exist or what adaptations to request. The barriers facing voters with sight loss also extend beyond the polling station. That is why this Bill also calls for a review of our postal voting system, which many blind voters feel pushed towards because of the inaccessibility of polling stations. However, the same issues of independence and privacy are present: 68% of blind postal voters told the RNIB they had assistance from another person to enable them to vote. One respondent told the RNIB: “I avoid voting in person because my local polling station doesn’t have a clue what to do with me. Now I use postal voting but have to rely on my partner completing my voting form so it isn’t confidential, nor can I guarantee they tick the boxes I ask them to. I just have to trust them.” While voting in this country continues to rely on an inaccessible paper-based system, in Australia they have introduced a human-assisted telephone voting model, whereby a blind or partially sighted person can pre-register so that on the day of the election they can vote over the phone anonymously and in secret. Reflecting best practice from other countries, this Bill demands a proactive and accelerated approach to tackling the barriers to voting that disabled people face. This Bill is ultimately a recognition that elections can and must be made accessible to everyone. An accessible voting system is essential for the health of our democracy, and this Bill is a vital step to correcting an injustice and building a democracy where voters such as John are not left behind. I urge the House to support this Bill. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ms Julie Minns, Steve Darling, Jim Shannon, Mims Davies, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Paul Davies, Liam Conlon, Katrina Murray, Irene Campbell, James Naish, Lee Pitcher and Deirdre Costigan present the Bill. Ms Julie Minns accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March , and to be printed (Bill 1 66 ) .

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On the eve of this year’s general election, hundreds of Carlisle residents woke to find that brown water was coming out of their taps. Some might describe the stained water as a metaphor for 14 years of Conservative failure but, for most of my residents, it was just another reminder of the poor service they have had to endure from the local water company. Indeed, in the last two weeks alone, there have been 56 sewage discharges within a 5-mile radius of Carlisle, lasting a total of 152 hours. This not only has the impact of harming local wildlife, as we have already heard this evening, but it also makes our rivers a no-go zone for locals. As someone who enjoys cold-water swimming, I find it a tragedy that our rivers, which have defined our great border city for centuries, have been reduced to the personal polluting pools of United Utilities. Yet our system rewards this behaviour. Just last month, the company announced hundreds of millions in profit while seeking to further increase customer bills by an astounding 32%. Bonuses just shy of £1.5 million were doled out to two executives, on top of salaries already topping £1 million. This is the state of water regulation in this country—one where polluting, not the polluter, pays. At least, that was the state of affairs under the previous Government, but not any more. I am delighted that this Bill is giving us the powers finally to hold the water companies to account, finally to block bonuses to underperforming water bosses, finally to levy fines that genuinely deter polluting our waterways, and finally to stop these companies marking their own homework by introducing proper independent monitoring of every outlet. The water industry was a wild west under the last Government, and I for one am delighted that there is a new sheriff in town.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I will share two particular memories of Lord Prescott. The first is from my time working for the disability charity Scope. We had decided as a campaigns team to use the 1997 general election to highlight the many obstacles that disabled people faced when exercising their democratic right to vote. I and my campaign colleagues devised the “Polls Apart” campaign, which included a special campaign pack for candidates. Bearing in mind that this was in the halcyon days before email, a campaign pack was something of a rarity. We printed, stapled and posted out hundreds of packs to candidates the length and breadth of the UK, including one to the Labour candidate for Kingston upon Hull East. Off it went, sent second class. To our amazement, a week or so later, a reply came back saying that Mr Prescott not only supported the campaign, but had written to all of Labour’s candidates in his capacity as the general election co-ordinator, instructing them to take the campaign actions that our pack suggested. More than that, when Labour was elected a few weeks later, he brought forward amendments to the Representation of the People Act to make it easier for disabled people to exercise their right to vote. I had met John Prescott a few years before that, when I worked for the then Member of Parliament for Streatham, the right hon. Keith Hill. Both John and Keith were members of the RMT parliamentary group, which was as broad and diverse as its talent was deep. I asked Keith ahead of my remarks today if he had any particular memories of John that I might share with the House, and he told me of one from his time as a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. John and Keith were due to make a presentation on Labour’s housing growth areas to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in the Cabinet Room one morning at 9 am. At 4 am, John was still working on the presentation. He decided that he needed to know about the rail connections between Cambridge and Oxford, so he phoned Network Rail. Members can doubtless imagine the startled reaction of the poor Network Rail official who answered that call at 4 o’clock in the morning from someone claiming to be the Deputy Prime Minister, who had a very specific question about east-west rail links. Tony Blair was equally amazed at 9 am. “And did he tell you what the rail connections are?”, asked the PM. “There aren’t any,” replied John—“We’re going to change that.” Now, thanks to the Budget, that change will finally be delivered—a fitting tribute, perhaps, to the work ethic, energy and enthusiasm for change that John Prescott exemplified.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In recent weeks, two of my constituents have contacted me about unacceptable delays at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and particularly about wait times for medical assessments. Most recently, concerns have been raised about the performance of the Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency. People in Carlisle and north Cumbria are experiencing incredibly long wait times for driving tests. In areas like mine, where public transport is virtually non-existent, driving is a precursor to being economically active. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the steps that the Department for Transport is taking to improve the performance of both the DVLA and the DVSA?