Thousands of abused women may be unable to vote
anonymously at the General Election or mooted Scottish Referendum as the result
of the omission of Scottish legislation in an Act passed by Westminster.
Under provisions set out in the Electoral
Administration Act 2006, in order to qualify for anonymous registration, the
individual must first prove that their safety, or that of any other person in
the same household, would be at risk if their details were to be made public.
However, the documentation listed in the Act includes
orders that are only relevant in England
and Wales, while the
equivalent legislation relevant to Scotland has been omitted.
In order to prove risk of safety, the Act states that
an individual can produce a nonmolestation order, as outlined in the Family Law
Act 1996. However, this only applies to England
and Wales.
The equivalent orders in Scotland,
interdicts or exclusions orders, are not listed in the legislation and
therefore cannot be used as proof of risk.
Under the terms of the Act, the only way in which an
individual in Scotland can
register anonymously is to produce a non-harrassment order, which is difficult
to get hold of and therefore, less commonly used than interdicts and exclusion
orders in Scotland.
Alternatively, they must request a signed letter from either the Chief
Constable of a Scottish police force or Chief Social Work Officer in Scotland.
In addition, despite the Act being passed in July
2006 and the date of the Scottish elections clearly set out by statute, the
provisions for anonymous registration did not commence until June 1 2007 - one
month after the Scottish elections. As a result, there were no provisions for
anonymous voting during the May elections.
While women in refuge accommodation are entitled to
vote by registering at their refuge address, without the provision for
anonymous registration, their name and this address would appear on the
electoral register, making their location accessible by potentially abusive
partners.
Louise Johnson, Scottish Women’s Aid said: “The fact
that none of these protective orders is listed effectively renders them
incapable of being recognised as appropriate attestation under this circular.”
She points out that while the Act states that: “Any
order or injunction must be for the protection or for the benefit of the
applicant or another person of the same household”, this cannot be interpreted
to cover all and any protective orders, as the list of acceptable orders is
clearly prefaced by the words: “An eligible court document would be: ..”
She continues: “This matter is clearly concerning.
The majority of protective orders obtained in Scotland are interdicts and
exclusion orders granted under these Acts, nonharassment orders being few and
far between.
“Consequently, the instructions and information in
this circular excludes, from obtaining the anonymous registration protection
afforded to those in England
and Wales, those women and
young people in Scotland
experiencing domestic abuse who hold protective interdicts or exclusion orders.
“In fact, the omission of protective orders granted
under these Scottish statutes effectively disenfranchises anyone in Scotland with
such a court order from applying for anonymous registration.”
Johnson, who has already contacted the Electoral
Commission for clarification on this issue and plans to raise it further with
the Scotland Office adds: “As I am aware our local Women’s Aid groups have
already received enquiries from women using their services on the matter of
anonymous electoral registration, it is imperative that the circular and
accompanying application forms be amended without delay.”
A spokesperson for the Domestic Violence Probation
Project in Edinburgh
said: “It is unfortunate and disappointing that new legislation, which has the
opportunity to improve the circumstances of women and children experiencing
domestic abuse, falls short of this achievement through what would appear to be
a lack of appreciation of the current difficulties in successfully obtaining a
non-harassment order.
She says that collecting and providing evidence of
abuse for interdicts and exclusion orders is “a distressing process”, adding:
“It would seem at best unfair to add a further layer to this process when women
are already experiencing extraordinarily challenging circumstances and
uncertainty.
She continues: “Where women have been compelled to
undertake a geographical move, it may also be impractical to expect they could
easily access support to seek such letters from the Chief Constable or Chief
Officer of Social Work. Despite a clear willingness in these agencies to
promote the safety of women and children, requiring women to again reveal or
re-tell their very personal experiences to further professionals could be
experienced as humiliating.”
No one has commented on this article.
Related news items:
|
Holyrood news 
