Electoral Administration Bill

moved Amendment No. 114C:"After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—" ““PRISONERS VOTING    No person who has— (a)   been convicted of any criminal offences, and (b)   is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment and is detained in full-time custody in consequence thereof, shall be included on the register of electors.”” The noble Baroness said: The amendment would ensure that those detained under custodial sentences in Her Majesty’s prisons would not be entitled to vote. It would not affect the right to vote given to prisoners on remand as afforded by Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act 2000. As I am sure the Minister will understand, this is a probing amendment intended to take the opportunity of this Bill to discover the Government’s exact position on prisoner voting. Since the European Hirst v the United Kingdom judgment on 30 March 2004, there has been some uncertainty as to the exact stance on the right of prisoners to vote. Prior to that, the Opposition and the Government were united in the view that committing a crime worthy of conviction leads to the restriction of an individual’s civil rights, and that includes the freedom of movement and the freedom to vote. In 2003, the Minister of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, stated that,"““prisoners convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant imprisonment have lost the moral authority to vote””," and that,"““disenfranchisement pursues a legitimate aim and is proportionate””.—[Official Report, 20/10/03; col. WA143.]" On BBC Radio 4’s ““The World at One”” in October last year, the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, stated:"““We need to look and see whether there are any categories that should be given the right to vote””." Further, from January 2005 a pilot scheme, no less, allowed a certain number of convicted prisoners to vote in the last election. Under the scheme, prisoners were allowed to serve their sentence either at the weekend or between Monday and Thursday afternoons and were therefore able to register to vote from other addresses—presumably their home addresses. That chain of events leaves me somewhat confused about the Government’s exact stance on the right of prisoners to vote. The basis for reassessing the franchise for prisoners was raised by the European ruling in Hirst v the United Kingdom on 6 October 2005, which I mentioned earlier. The objection was raised that the issue had not received sufficient parliamentary scrutiny that would warrant the restriction of the franchise, and the ruling stated:"““It could not be said that there was any substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification, in the light of modern day penal policy””." I think we would differ from that view. But the current prohibitions are longstanding and were explicitly maintained by Parliament after discussion in proceedings on the Representation of the People Act 2000. That is explicitly laid down at col. 300 of Hansard for 15 December 1999. Yet, in order to leave future court proceedings in no doubt as to our continued opinion on the seriousness of the consequences of committing a crime worthy of incarceration, I think that it is right to raise the debate here today. I would add that the European judgment did not strongly discourage the restriction of the franchise. Indeed, it stated:"““Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which enshrined the individual’s capacity to influence the composition of the law-making power, did not therefore exclude that restrictions on electoral rights be imposed on an individual . . . whose conduct threatened to undermine the rule of law””." It said that disenfranchisement should not be based on,"““what might offend public opinion””," and that there should be,"““a strong safeguard against arbitrariness””." When the accepted law of society is abused, that right is restricted. It is not an arbitrary consideration. Disenfranchisement is not a bar to reform or rehabilitation. Far from it: the vote is precious and a right to be cherished by those of us living in a free society. Surely part of the rehabilitation process is that, when something has been taken away, you have that to look forward to when a prison sentence terminates. The right to vote should not be taken for granted. Rather, it should be viewed as a right that we are fortunate to have. When it is taken away, it is an incentive to aspire to regain that right. I conclude by commenting that, aside from the serious reasons for restricting the franchise for convicted criminals, it would be ironic if someone who could have been imprisoned for electoral fraud under the new offences introduced in this Bill was, nevertheless, allowed to participate in elections. I beg to move.