A number of Bills each year are now published in draft and subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The scrutiny is usually undertaken by the relevant Departmental Select Committees in the Commons, but some are sent to a Joint Committee of both Houses. I have previously served on two such committees. This week I was appointed to a third.
The issue of prisoner voting rights has proved highly contentious. The Government has now produced a Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, outlining three options. This has been referred to a Joint Committee, comprising six MPs and six peers. The Lords on Tuesday agreed the names of the six peers and the committee held its first meeting on Wednesday, when we elected a chair (Nick Gibb MP) and agreed our programme. We also agreed a call for evidence (which can be read here). Written submissions should be received by 15 June.
To me it’s simple. Anyone in jail on polling day is ineligible to vote. If voting is that important then don’t commit a crime that might result in being incarcerated on the day.
@Dave H: what about people on remand? They haven’t been convicted of any crime, but may happen to be in custody on polling day. They may subsequently be cleared of all charges. So why deny them the vote?
That’s a fair point. They’re innocent at that point so in theory they’re not ‘in jail’ even if they are, if you see what I mean.
Being convicted and going to jail entails loss of privileges. If someone chooses to break the law then they should factor in the lack of a vote as part of that choice if it’s important to them.
@Dave H.
Surely you do not believe most of those incarcerated give a toss one way or another about their voting rights?
Which is why a change in tact would be a good way to go. Not having a vote has not reduced the level of inmates to date. Therefore, to introduce them to the need for their participation in the system may bring about some insight. Make it important for them to join society and encourage them to take on board the idea of collective responsibility. Even if it worked with only one man or woman, it would be a good move.
In other words, make voting fashionable, it may lead to a broadening of horizons.
Dread the thought that those who are outside of our society should want to join it. Should they get that idea, how would those hundreds who feed of the criminal world earn a living? Mmm!
Remand prisoners have had the right to vote since 2000
“This week I was appointed…”
Excellent news.
For clarification, are all prisoners denied the ability to vote in UK prisons, regardless of their nationality and do, say, French jails ensure UK prisoners have postal/proxy votes? Also, will those in military jails be affected?
Since Rosemary West’s last address is now a public footpath, will the Bill be expected to find a solution for her? Presumably, those with no fixed address can not be enrolled on the electoral register, but should prisoners with an address be entitled if they had not done so before beginning their prison term?
There are so many other questions requiring serious debate that I believe this Bill could be knocking around for quite a while…
AOB: the set-up of the ECHR is fatally flawed and attempts at reform are futile. Allons-y.
A chronicly cankerous “cart before the horse”, I think this one is.
We (all) need to have all of our Needs both listed and prioritised,
at both individual and collective levels,
before ‘lucky-lobbying’ for a “Right” to both have a need and satisfy it should be fought-about or fait-accomplie’d.
Also the “Right” to have and to satisfy such a lifesupport should be prioritised and (&) egalitarianised
i.e. according to its lifesupportive-efficiency for “every human being and this individual therein”.
——————-
So “rights”-wise we need to begin from an exhaustively prioritised list of individual as well as collective
human-needs;
which should not be too difficult considering that Governments and Businesses worldwide already work from such Lists (albeit not “human-right puristically” but “market supply/demand competitively”)
[e.g. ASDA, Microsoft, MacDonalds or The NHS).
Without this clear distinction and prioritisation, how can any-one’s “right’ to have even a vital need, and to satisfy it ‘legally’ be determined ?
And how can any other human-being’s “shadow-or governing right” to refuse such need, or otherwise prevent its satisfaction,
be justified ?
——-
Thus surely prisoners (too) need to know what they Need and what they “can need”,
long before they try to search-out a true (or-quite-riskily-false) “parliamentary-representative” to both advocate those Needs and go on to secure the person’s (prisoner’s) “right” to satisfy such need.
Just say they can have the vote, but not a postal vote.
Then, how are they going to get to the voting station?
It’s bonkers.
Can anyone explain to me why a prisoner should not have a vote?
Is this something that they do in the rest of Europe?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/21/prisoners-right-to-vote
From my point of view, denying a prisoner a vote is thinking backwards. Because a person going to prison does not remove their collective humanity. And by taking away this option to count or have a say in who runs our country, is a way to re-introduce a man or woman to their responsibility toward society. Alienation is why many prisoners are there in the first place. Surely encouraging social connection is the way to improve their feeling of worth. Something that we would all benefit by. Not to allow it indicates a narrowness akin to Zimbabwean dictators.
And, dare I say, in the main, Europe doesn’t do this. They realise, quite rightly, that every man has a place in society even having gone off the rails. Which so many in the Lords have done and still do, leading to jail terms.
Did not being able to vote make them less likely to re-offend? I doubt it. Something, I feel, quite the reverse would be truth.
We have always been a country of barbarian thinking in comparison to the European mind. ‘Farage is us.’ Voltaire is European understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire
What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly – that is the first law of nature.
Voltaire
Maude, it might be helpful to distinguish between human rights and civil rights but I am certainly no expert in either!
More generally, your initial question challenges the ECHR ruling since it did not make voting for all prisoners mandatory though, to keep the status quo in the UK, we’d better have darn good reasons and evidence to back up our stance.
The Committee of Ministers (of the Council of Europe)have been demanding action from the UK on this since 2006(?), with final demands since 2009. The next final demand is September. Can’t wait.
@Lady T:
As we appear to have few ‘darn good reasons and evidence’ to back up our stance on much legislation pushed through Parliament and onto the public every day we breathe, I cannot see the why you feel so strongly on this issue.
It strikes me a ridiculous stance to keep prisoners unable to vote because of an added nuisance factor to prison routine. Especially when the call to prayer for other inmates, five times a day, is not considered an annoyance that is generally felt not to be tolerated.
The call to vote should be available to all in a democratic society. For, as those in the Lords should know well, criminality changes with fashion. What the population were jailed for yesterday, is heralded today. Which only proves, many are jailed on a political whim and have their rights removed erroneously.
Time to change that policy once and for all.
Part of their punishment is to be removed from society. That includes lots of things. Why shouldn’t the right to vote be part of that?
e.g. Lets vote for the party that lets criminals out of jail early.
It subverts their punishment to allow them to have a say in what that punishment is.
Maude wrote: “Can anyone explain to me why a prisoner should not have a vote?”
I certainly cannot. I also cannot disagree with Maude’s argument in general. I particularly agree with her point that keeping prisoners engaged in the electoral process is a part of keeping them engaged in society and/or assisting them to (re)engage with it.
I would also add that denying a person incarcerated their right to vote – including those serving a custodial sentence – is an additional and extra-judicial punishment.
And why pick on this particular right? Prisoners do not lose the ability to own property, and it would be monstrous to suggest that it should be otherwise.
The right to participate in the selection of our representatives is a fundament of our excellent unwritten constitution.
This right is presently generally available to citizens aged 18 or older. This was not always so. For some time it was only available to males who owned land. Before making any change that would restrict the general right now granted, we should ask what that change would say about us, and what kind of society we want to live in.
The supremacy of parliament means that the legal technicalities of depriving prisoners of this fundamental right to participate can of course be met with the figurative stroke of a pen. This does not mean that it should be done – even (Lord Norton) if it is likely to benefit the Tories . Is the supremacy of parliament itself not founded upon the right to participate?
The media spend a lot of time fascinating people with crime, because it sells. It follows that elected representatives have a natural interest in making a show of being tough on crime. It also follows that a great deal of legislative energy is directly focussed on matters of direct interest to prisoners.
Arranging for prisoners to exercise their right to vote, is undoubtedly a nuisance to prison authorities. This would be a very poor reason for removing it.
It may be that only a handful of prisoners ever shows any interest in exercising their vote. I would say that this does not lessen the importance of facilitation.
Constitutional values should continue to be accorded a higher place than media driven hysteria. In many countries this is sadly this is not the case.
The committee website says the call for evidence closes at 5 pm on the 13th.