Member News
MPs have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion rejecting a court ruling that prisoners should be allowed to vote.
The vote was ayes 234, noes 22.
Dominic Raab, who sponsored the motion, said that it is not pandering to public opinion for MPs to assert their right to make law.
Today's vote is not binding on the government.
The debate was granted by the backbench business committee after widespread disquiet that a European Court of Human Rights ruling will force the British government to give prisoners the vote.
Justice secretary Ken Clarke has said the government cannot ignore a ruling from the court without exposing the taxpayer to millions of pounds worth of compensation claims from prisoners.
Under his proposals prisoners serving up to four years in prison will be able to vote in general elections by proxy or by post in their normal constituency of residence.
Former shadow home secretary David Davis has said the Commons must assert its right to make a decision on whether or nor prisoners can vote.
At the start of an afternoon of debate on the issue in the Commons, Davis and former home secretary Jack Straw set out their case.
Davis told MPs it is important not to confuse the rights of free people with those who have had their liberty taken from them for serious crimes.
He said prisoners have sacrificed not just their liberty but other fundamental rights such as freedom of association.
"If you break the law, you cannot make the law," he said.
Davis said the court was "ill-informed" as the UK does not have a blanket ban on prisoners.
In fact those on remand or convicted of crimes "below the threshold of seriousness" still have the vote.
"Despite what the justice secretary said the other day, it will be violent criminals, sex offenders and drug dealers who get the vote if we take the compromises that have been aired so far.
"The government talked about a four year rule, less than four years. Well that would be 28,000 and there are many thousands of very serious crimes, sex crimes and crimes against children incorporated into that. Even one year, there will be thousands of people, many of whom will have committed serious crimes."
Bernard Jenkin (Con, Harwich and North Essex) said there is "no demand from prisoners for this right" and the issue is "completely irrelevant" to the challenges facing the prison system.
Davis added that giving the vote to prisoners "would not stop one crime in this country".
Jack Straw said that there has been a ban in place since at least 1870, and both Tory and Labour government have examined the issue in 1968, 1983 and 1999.
On all those occasions there was "overwhelming cross-party support" for a bar on prisoners having the franchise.
He said in 32 years as an MP he has dealt with hundreds of complaints from prisoners but one has ever complained that they cannot vote.
Straw said the "key problem" is the European convention on human rights was not incorporated into law in the UK, so the court was less likely to give the UK a "margin of appreciation".
Former home secretary Alan Johnson said one reason tne court gave for the ruling was that Parliament had failed to debate and vote on the issue.
Straw said that "by no stretch of the imagination" is this about fundamental human rights - it is a matter of penal policy.
He said the court is trying to set itself up as a "supreme court" for Europe, but unlike such courts in the US or Germany, there is no democratic over-ride of its decisions.
"We are expected to to do the opposite of what we believe," he said.
Article Comments
This whole discussion is moot. Cameron never intended to buck the ECHR. He is no doubt grateful that the Liberals are in the Coalition and will take all of the blame for the breaking of his pre-election promise to overhaul the Human Rights Act.
I sincerely regret voting Conservative at the last election though I have always done so previously. Cameron is the most ineffectual Prime Minister since Callaghan. Though to be fair to 'Sonny Jim', he at least had ethics and was not in it for personal prestige and posturing.
Peter Brown
11th Feb 2011 at 9:30 am
Once again the need to appease Murdoch and the Daily Mail has trumped common decency and humanity. Excellent speech by Lorely Burt who destroyed the Davis/Straw argument.
However we should not be surprised that the rodent from Blackburn argued in favour of breaking our commitments under an international treaty given his cheerleading for ignoring the UN Charter when he lied to parliament and the country about Saddam's non-existent WMDs and the threat they posed. How this man was ever deemed a worthy successor to Barbara Castle is beyond belief!
Congratulations to the 22 democrats who showed they understand why they were elected.
Tim Mullen
10th Feb 2011 at 8:03 pm
There seems to be alot of confusion as to the nature if the debate, and the content of the ECHR ruling. The issue is with the fact that the ruling states that the UK employs a 'blanket ban' which would violate a prisoners 'right to representation';. However, the UK employs an automatic ban that is restored once a sentence has been completed.
C.Hall
10th Feb 2011 at 8:00 pm
Adam,
I respect the argument that you make, though I disagree with it - but you have made the cardinal error in your comment of confusing the European Court of Human Rights with the EU. The Court is a free-standing body which is not in any way part of the European Union machinery. And it's worth noting that the Court was set up in 1950 at the instigation of Winston Churchill.
Finally, on the substance of your point, your view is that prisoners don't have the right to vote. This is a reasonable view to take, but it is not the legal position, which is that criminals do have some human rights - even if we don't like the fact - and one of those rights, for some (not all) criminals is to have the vote.
The real question is, do we agree with MPs defying the law? If so, I trust those same MPs won't object when others break the law too?
Patrick Mahon
10th Feb 2011 at 5:03 pm
I like to think of myself as a 'liberal' and a supporter of the broad ideas behind the European Union, if not the waste and bureaucracy that seems to go with it. Even so the idea of the European Court of Human Rights commanding the UK to give prisoners the vote leaves me feeling bewildered and not a little angry.
In a civilized country prisoners have the right to a fair trial, decent treatment whilst in prison and to be rehabilitated so that they aren't trapped in a life of crime; what they don't have, what they have forfeited by breaking the law, is the right to vote for the people who make the laws.
Attempting to force the government of any member state to give votes to people who have chosen to act against the common good of the society in which they live makes the EU look foolish, out of touch with the feelings of its citizens and gives ammunition to its critics.
Adam Colclough
10th Feb 2011 at 4:00 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.