| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I heard the extensive criticisms of the Bill that were made at Second Reading and repeated again this morning, and obviously we have taken note of them. A number of items of constitutional importance have been dropped by the Government as a consequence of what has been said. Indeed, it is worth making the point that, ironically, we have been criticised for dropping some of the things that we have dropped, but lessons have no doubt been learnt. Once again, I repeat how grateful we are to noble Lords who had strong feelings about this Bill and who have taken part in discussions today so that, at the end of the day, we have a Bill to send back to the other place. I repeat again that we very much take on board what my noble friend Lord Rooker said about post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill in time to come.
Let me turn to the issue of the amendment. Everyone in the Committee is well aware of the expertise and high reputation of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when he talks about these matters. He is attempting through the amendment to repeal Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, thereby removing the statutory prohibition on voting by convicted prisoners. It remains the Government's view that the right to vote goes to the essence of the offender's relationship with democratic society, and the removal of the right to vote in the case of some convicted prisoners can be a proportionate and proper response following conviction and imprisonment. Indeed, the noble Lord himself said just as he ended his address that he had never believed that all prisoners, whatever they had done, should be given the right to vote.
Our approach to implementing voting rights for prisoners aims to arrive at a solution that respects the judgment of the Court in Hirst while taking into account our own traditions. Indeed, the Committee knows that the European Court affords a wide margin of appreciation not just to the United Kingdom but to other countries when they pass their judgments. We have been consistently clear that we oppose enfranchising all prisoners irrespective of the seriousness of their crimes or the length of their sentence, which would be the actual effect of the amendment. We consider that the more serious the offence, the less an individual should have the right to retain the right to vote when sentenced to imprisonment. Tying the entitlement to vote to sentence length has the benefit of establishing a clear relationship between the seriousness of the offence or offences and the suspension of the right to vote.
Our proposed approach to the enfranchisement of prisoners is therefore based on the length of custodial sentence to which a prisoner has been sentenced. We have consulted on a range of options that would allow those receiving sentences of up to one year, two years' or four years' imprisonment to retain the right to vote. We are considering the responses to the consultation and will set out our next steps towards implementation
7 Apr 2010 : Column 1648
Some people believe that once the statutory bar is removed, there would be few practical considerations of substance to be dealt with. We say that that would not be true. In contrast, I have to tell the Committee that extending the franchise to convicted prisoners to any degree would require obviously a considerable number of issues to be resolved and settled in electoral law, if nothing else, if it is to be done consistently and effectively. Let me mention just a few of those issues. Where should prisoners be entitled to be registered to vote-for example, in what constituency? How should prisoners be recorded on the register? How would prisoners cast their votes-by post, by proxy or a combination of the two? How would the security of the ballot be enforced? This amendment would provide for none of those things. It would risk creating inconsistencies in approach. Electoral administrations would not have clarity on how to implement the legislation, which could lead to anomalies in arrangements. A rushed implementation of prisoners' voting rights may also mean that it is not possible to ensure that the right systems are in place to prevent electoral fraud.
It is vital that Parliament has proper time to scrutinise, debate and amend proposals for enfranchising prisoners. [Laughter.] If noble Lords say, as they do, with some justification, that they should have had longer to review this Bill, they can hardly support this amendment. Supporting amendments to complex electoral legislation, given the lack of parliamentary time available, and seeking to implement Hirst 2 as an amendment to this Bill is not appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I have to admit that the wording of this amendment was suggested by the excellent Public Bill Office, which has been overworked on this Bill as much as on anything else. As I have made clear on the other occasions when I have tabled this amendment, I am not in favour of all prisoners voting. However, to go into all the details of that at this stage of this Bill would be utterly inappropriate.
As regards timing, the Government have now had six years since the ruling of the court, so to come at this at a rush now seems utterly inappropriate. The last part of what the Minister had to say was highly inappropriate in relation to the Bill that we are discussing and the stage at which we are discussing it. It seems paradoxical, given that we have been fussed about the rush with which things have been put to us, to be ending up talking about a delay during which something could have been brought forward.
However, not just in view of the hour but in view of the stage of this Bill, it is obviously highly inappropriate to take this forward. I hope that the points that noble
7 Apr 2010 : Column 1649
Clause 94 : Power to make consequential provision
Amendments 156 to 158 not moved.
Amendments 158A and 158B agreed.
Clause 95 : Extent, commencement, transitional provision and short title
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): I must advise the Committee of two misprints at this point in the Marshalled List. I am sure that everyone will have spotted the fact that Amendment 161 should be taken after Amendment 160, and the italics regarding Clause 95 standing part should come after Amendment 162.
Amendments 159A and 159B agreed.
Lord Elton: Could we possibly have an indication of what the amendments are about?
Lord Tunnicliffe: I am assured by officials that all the manuscript amendments are purely consequential.
7 Apr 2010 : Column 1650
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Would it assist the Committee if I read out the amendments? However, I do not think they would enlighten noble Lords too much if I did.
Amendments 160 to 162 not moved.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed.
Amendments 162A and 162B agreed.
Amendments 163A and 163B agreed.
Amendments 164 and 165 not moved.
Amendments 166 and 167 agreed.
Lord Elton: May I make the point that it would be quite easy to have these photocopied and circulated, as manuscript amendments have been in the past?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord will find that the amendments were available in the Printed Paper Office.
Lord Elton: I unreservedly withdraw that comment.
Amendments 168 and 169 agreed.
The Title, as amended, agreed.
House resumed. Bill reported with amendments. Report and Third Reading agreed without debate. Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.
7 Apr 2010 : Column 1651
Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [HL]
Returned from the Commons
The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Manchester City Council Bill [HL]
Returned from the Commons
The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Equality Bill
Returned from the Commons
The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
7 Apr 2010 : Column 1652
Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill [HL]
Returned from the Commons
The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to.
Bribery Bill [HL]
Returned from the Commons
The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments. It was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
Digital Economy Bill [HL]
Returned from the Commons
The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment. It was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |