Member News
The government "bailing over" to demands from Europe to lift the blanket ban on prisoner voting would entitle a "shocking" number to vote, a Conservative MP has warned.
Backbencher Philip Hollobone said the coalition government needed a "hardened spine" so it could resist a judgement from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that inmates should be able to vote.
Accusing the government of "bending over to the human rights lobby", he reminded MPs of the prime minister's previous insistence that "when people commit a crime and go to prison, they should lose their right to vote".
Speaking during a debate in Westminster Hall, the Kettering MP warned that public opinion was not in favour of prisoner voting rights, and urged the government to resist the ECHR judgement which had decided "once again to interfere in Britain's domestic affairs".
Hollobone pointed out that many other signatories to the EU convention on human rights also had blanket bans on prisoner voting, and asked why Britain was being singled out for special treatment from the ECHR.
Voicing concern at the government's decision to allow prisoners sentenced to fewer than four years to vote, he rejected the argument that it represented the difference between serious and non-serious offences.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Con, Suffolk Coastal) highlighted that many people found guilty of rape were often convicted four fewer than four years.
Agreeing, Hollobone warned that the public would be "sickened if rapists are given the right to vote".
Hollobone issued a word of caution to the government, which he said would be defeated if it continued to pursue the issue.
"My constituents, and many other people up and down the land, are furious that once again the government seems to be bailing over to the human rights lobby to introduce measures which are frankly inappropriate to the balance of crime and justice in this country," he told MPs.
"Once again we seem to be going soft on criminal justice issues and the British people will not put up with this for much longer. Here is a golden opportunity for the new coalition government to say we are going to put Britain first.
"I can say to the government with some confidence that if they continue to press this issue in the House they will be defeated."
Labour MP Kate Green argued that it was "morally right" to allow prisoners to vote.
"In a decent and civilised society it is right that we treat all, including prisoners, with respect," the Stretford and Urmston MP said.
She added that it would be contradictory to select which laws and obligations the UK adhered to.
A former magistrate, the MP suggested that prisoner voting could be introduced as part of the rehabilitation process.
"If we fail to give prisoners any stake in our society, it is difficult to see why they should wish to reintegrate into that society," she argued.
Tom Brake (LD, Carshalton and Wallington) emphasised that the proposals did not represent a radical departure of policy, and pointed out that remand prisoners and fine defaulters in prison were already able to vote.
He said the government was between a "rock and a hard place".
Rejecting Brake's argument that the issue was not clear-cut, but "shades of grey", Peter Bone (Con, Wellingborough) said: "It either is or is not a good thing for society that prisoners should have the vote."
Gareth Johnson (Con, Dartford) argued that it was "laughable" that prisoners might have a say on the operation of the justice system.
He said the coalition should be "far tougher" in deciding which prisoners could vote.
Human rights committee member Dominic Raab (Con, Esher and Walton) asked "how bad must things be before ministers stand up for the prerogatives of elected UK lawmakers?"
Shadow justice minister Chris Bryant argued that the proposals were "wholly inappropriate", adding that the British government were far more generous than in other European nations.
He expressed concern that around 6,000 violent criminals would be enfranchised.
And he asked whether prisoners detained in mental health hospitals would be entitled to vote.
He told MPs: "A lot of people in the House are understandably angry about our (Labour's) inaction in the past but I must say I prefer our inaction on the subject to the government's action thus far."
Responding for the government, Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper admitted that many members of within government did not want to make the change.
However, the ECHR ruled that the blanket ban was contrary to the convention on human rights, he reminded members.
Under the changes, the sentence limit would be entirely up to judges, but the most serious offenders would not be able to vote, he emphasised.
And the change would only apply to Westminster and EU elections – not local elections or referendums.
He concluded that the government would prefer not take action on the issue, but did not have a choice, and so would introduce its proposals before the summer recess.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.