The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

How will Cameron solve his prisoners' votes headache?

Ministers deny that they are planning to introduce votes for prisoners. But they still need to respond to the European court's ruling.

By George Eaton Published 24 October 2012 9:51
David Cameron visits Wormwood Scrubs Prison earlier this week.
David Cameron visits Wormwood Scrubs Prison earlier this week. Photograph: Getty Images.

David Cameron once memorably declared that the thought of giving prisoners the vote made him "physically ill" but, as he later conceded, the government will have to "sort this out one way or the other". The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled as long ago as 2004 that the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting was illegal and repeated appeals against its decision have failed.

With just a month left until the deadline for the government to respond, today's Guardian reports that ministers are planning a draft bill to introduce limited prisoner voting rights in order to comply with the court's ruling. An announcement will reportedly be made after the police commissioner elections on 15 November. Conservative MPs, unsurprisingly, have reacted with fury to the news. Within hours of the Guardian story being published, Nick de Bois, Douglas Carswell, Stewart Jackson, Zac Goldsmith and others took to Twitter to reaffirm their opposition to the move. De Bois tweeted: "Sitting working with 5 other Cons MPs - if reports of prisoner voting rights are accurate then that's 6 MPs who won't vote for it". In February 2011, of course, no fewer than 234 MPs voted to keep the ban on prisoners voting, with just 22 opposed.

The government has responded this morning by categorically denying that it is planning to bring forward a bill, with one cabinet source telling the BBC: "It is completely untrue. It's not happening. Its complete nonsesnse." The Prime Minister, we are told, continues to believe that "when people go to prison, they lose their right to vote". But this doesn't alter the fact that the government will have to respond in some form to the ECHR ruling by late-November. So, how could it do so? Tory MP Dominic Raab has previously argued that ministers could simply ignore the ruling, with little prospect of the UK being fined by the European Court or ordered to withdraw from it. But the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, is known believe that, after the failure of successive appeals, the government has no choice but to comply with Strasbourg's demands. Expect Tory MPs to challenge Cameron to make it clear where he stands when PMQs begins later today.

Tags: David Cameron  Conservatives    

 
 

7 comments

Ray Bewry's picture

Sun, 2012-11-18 20:08 — Ray Bewry (not verified)

The Government's wording of the draft bill on extending to convicted prisoners the right to vote is a matter of concern. I suggest that the issue is being addressed from the wrong angle and that rather than consider the length of a prisoner's sentence it would be more logical and more productive to consider the prisoner's status (Category).

Category 'D' prisoners, for example, who can be reasonably trusted in 'open' conditions and for whom 'open' conditions are appropriate, often have work - paid or charitable - in the community; this is part of their rehabilitation, their preparation to return to life in society. Surely it would be more appropriate to base the amendment of legislation on such considerations than on a 'box-ticking' duration of sentence criterion!? Regaining the right to vote would thus be associated with the other elements of the prisoner's progress towards rehabilitation.

Completing the re-offending and re-settlement programmes through which offenders are prepared for their re-integration into the community is in many cases a pre-requisite to their gaining Category 'D' status. By extending the right to vote to Category 'D' prisoners who in many instances are already a part of the community in which they work - your Government would comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, and at the same time potentially save the public purse million of pounds in compensation.

Raymond Bewry

Ray Bewry's picture

Sun, 2012-11-18 20:07 — Ray Bewry (not verified)

The Government's wording of the draft bill on extending to convicted prisoners the right to vote is a matter of concern. I suggest that the issue is being addressed from the wrong angle and that rather than consider the length of a prisoner's sentence it would be more logical and more productive to consider the prisoner's status (Category).

Category 'D' prisoners, for example, who can be reasonably trusted in 'open' conditions and for whom 'open' conditions are appropriate, often have work - paid or charitable - in the community; this is part of their rehabilitation, their preparation to return to life in society. Surely it would be more appropriate to base the amendment of legislation on such considerations than on a 'box-ticking' duration of sentence criterion!? Regaining the right to vote would thus be associated with the other elements of the prisoner's progress towards rehabilitation.

Completing the re-offending and re-settlement programmes through which offenders are prepared for their re-integration into the community is in many cases a pre-requisite to their gaining Category 'D' status. By extending the right to vote to Category 'D' prisoners who in many instances are already a part of the community in which they work - your Government would comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, and at the same time potentially save the public purse million of pounds in compensation.

Raymond Bewry

Posh Tosh's picture

Thu, 2012-10-25 02:11 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

If prisoners have the vote, then I hope their victims families can have at least two votes.

Why should Ian Brady have a vote? Why should anyone whom has taken away another's life, or abused people, or inflicted injuries.

Why should hit and run drivers that beat up their victims have a vote?

Seti's picture

Wed, 2012-10-24 19:48 — Seti (not verified)

Oh, for crying out loud! What's the big deal here? They're only saying it shouldn't be a blanket ban - we still have the scope to say some (even "nearly all") groups of prisoners shouldn't have the vote (if it really matters to us so much that they shouldn't.) But given our propensity for locking up more and more people for less and less serious offences, the arguement becomes a little pointless. Someone who's in for 28 days for not paying their TV licence, or for not telling the Benefits Office that their unreliable boyfriend had moved back in yet again - yeah, they're really beyond the pale, right? And that makes Cameron "physically sick?" He must have a pretty weak constitution.

Magpie's View's picture

Wed, 2012-10-24 14:52 — Magpie's View (not verified)

Given the number of financially privileged criminals who are protected from prosecution (Bankers and MPs come most clearly to mind) you see how only financially deprived are likely to lose their right to vote.

Sacha's picture

Wed, 2012-10-24 13:10 — Sacha (not verified)

God, everyone knows that when you violate someone's human rights you give up your own, whichever the state thinks is suitable punishment. That's how human rights work, right? Right?

Fraziel1's picture

Wed, 2012-10-24 12:13 — Fraziel1

it;s not just tory mp's that oppose it or that are enraged by it. It's everyone except the out of touch liberal buffoons, most of whom are rarely affected by crime, that think its wrong. The government should just say no and take the fine. That's what the French and the Italians have done in the past and I am sure would do again.

Latest tweets