Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 55:"After Clause 12, insert the following new clause—" ““MANNER OF VOTING OF PATIENTS DETAINED IN MENTAL HOSPITALS    Sub-paragraph (6)(a) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Representation of the People Act 2000 (c. 2) is omitted.”” The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 55, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56. In general, society has moved on greatly in terms of mental health care and our attitudes towards it. Sadly, some aspects of our electoral legislation have been slower in keeping up with that progress. We made progress in the Representation of the People Act 2000, the Second Reading of which I remember particularly well as I made my maiden speech in the course of it. I remember the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who sadly cannot be here today. As ever, he spoke most eloquently and with just cause about the rights of people with mental disorders. It is clear now that impediments to the enfranchisement of hospitalised patients have become of an increasingly arbitrary nature. There is no real logic in distinguishing between voting entitlement for many people who are hospitalised as opposed to those receiving community based treatment, which is increasingly common for more serious mental disorders. In 2000, we got wrong our insistence that those patients detained under the Mental Health Act who may vote may do so only by post or proxy. With hindsight, I cannot recall why we thought that was at all appropriate. It means that a detained patient may not legally vote at a polling station, even if given leave from hospital for that purpose. The question also arises of how a presiding officer and his or her staff should know that someone is subject to powers under the Mental Health Act if they present themselves at a polling station and claim their entitlement to vote. Amendment No. 55 therefore aims to remove the blanket ban on people detained in psychiatric hospitals from voting in person. It has been recommended by the Mental Health Act Commission, and it would bring our electoral law into a more progressive era in line with the European Commission on Human Rights and our Human Rights Act. Of course, the option to vote by post or by proxy should remain. Amendment No. 56 aims to recognise the democratic rights of detained mental patients, ensuring that unconvicted patients and convicted patients who are not given prison sentences do not have their right to vote taken away. Again, I suggest that failure to address that may simply be untenable according to the European Convention on Human Rights and our Human Rights Act. Last October, the European Court declared that the disfranchisement of convicted prisoners may be in violation of the convention. I happen to think that there may be a case for disfranchising those convicted of the most serious offences, but not people who have not been convicted or have not been given a custodial sentence, merely because they are detained patients under the Mental Health Act. Thinking about people such as women suffering from post-natal depression, voting may not seem to be their most important priority, but they do not deserve to lose their right to vote to choose their elected representatives. I beg to move.