Defamation Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

24: After Clause 17, insert the following new Schedule—
“SCHEDULESpecialist Arbitration Service1 An Independent Regulatory Board must provide an Arbitration Service in relation to defamation and related civil legal claims drawing on independent legal experts on a cost-only basis to the subscribing member.
2 The arbitration rules must provide for a fair, quick and inexpensive process, which is inquisitorial and free for complainants to use (save for a power to make an adverse order for the costs of the arbitrator if proceedings are frivolous or vexatious).
3 The arbitrator shall have the powers set out in section 48(3) to (5) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
4 The arbitrator must be able to hold hearings where necessary or dispense with them where not necessary.
5 The process must include provision for frivolous or vexatious claims to be struck out at an early stage.”

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I see that the Minister is eager to respond, which I can well understand. I do not intend to detain the House; the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Pannick, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have made some powerful points. There were some important questions there, particularly regarding the policy of the Home Office, to which it would be helpful if the Minister is able to respond.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, an unusually large number of amendments are before your Lordships’ House today for a Third Reading. I do not recall seeing as many in my time in this House or in the other place. I can see Ministers nodding in agreement. Perhaps they could consider whether the Bill’s needing considerable discussion has something to do with its inadequacy when it was first presented to your Lordships' House. Noble Lords have made great efforts, particularly where they have supported the Government’s policies in principle, to look at the detail. However, in many cases—and perhaps understandably given that three completely new sections of the Bill were not envisaged when the timetable was set, and given the changes of Ministers and changes of policy that we have seen—it has been very difficult.

I appreciate that time is limited today, and I do take issue with the scheduling. We have three important debates with a large number of speakers tonight, and it will be difficult to complete the business within the rules of the Companion, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was right to draw the House’s attention, so I do not wish to repeat the comments that have been made. However, there are some important questions here.

I raised some questions on Report which came back to the issue of public safety. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, people understand, and I think that the House understands, why if somebody is a danger to the public they should not have leave to remain. The question is about the process and why somebody becomes a danger to the public when they leave the country, as the noble Lord said, but not when they are in the country. There is an issue of process here and it would be helpful if the Minister were able to address those points. However, noble Lords who have already spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have raised and done justice to the issues, so I do not intend to repeat them, but I would be very interested in the Minister’s response.

[Lord Elton]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should say that the Clerk of the Parliaments has kindly pointed out that I should have been looking at paragraph 8.143, not 8.142; therefore what we are doing is in order, but is far in advance of anything I remember in my earlier years. However, things do move on.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I readily concede the noble Lord’s encyclopaedic knowledge of the Companion, but I think the reasons why the amendments have been brought forward today are very good. However, it is unusual, and perhaps it would have been better to have had longer discussions about some of these issues, and to have had responses that satisfied the House earlier in the Bill’s proceedings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I am sorry if my responses on Report failed to satisfy the House; I hope that I can satisfy it today. I understand that the scheduling of today’s business was agreed through the usual channels, and nobody has a more vested interest in the speedy resolution of business than I do, as I believe I will be the last speaker on today’s business.

My noble friend quite rightly pointed out that his amendments are similar to those which he tabled on Report. I explained then that our principal reasons for resisting the first amendment were the detrimental impact on the statutory appeals framework, and the increased number of appeals and costs that would result. Although this amendment is framed more tightly and specifically, the same detrimental impact will result from it. While I recognise the intention of the amendment is to reduce the delay in bringing an appeal for children and trafficked persons, the consequences for the appeals framework are not justified.

Only a minority of unaccompanied children who claim asylum are affected by this policy in the way described by my noble friend Lord Avebury. It affects only those who are older than 16 and a half when refused asylum but granted some other form of leave. These children are close to adulthood and have a right of appeal should a decision be taken to remove them after their leave runs out at age 17 and a half. As I said last time, this delay is not unreasonable.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the age of 18 is a statutory boundary between childhood and adulthood, and Governments have to live within the constraints of that. It is important to recognise that in all cases, before a child or trafficked person is removed from the UK, they will be entitled to a right of appeal. That is part of the process.

The Government’s policy ensures that individuals do not have multiple appeal rights over a brief period of time, possibly raising the same arguments on each occasion as matters may not have evolved since their last appeal. The amendment would undermine this key principle of the Secretary of State’s asylum appeals framework.

I turn now to Amendment 5, which my noble friend has also brought back. As I set out previously, the individuals we are seeking to capture in this clause are those excluded by the Secretary of State—that is to say, they are individuals who pose the highest threat to the public, be it for engagement in terrorism, serious criminality or unacceptable behaviour. It is therefore only right that an appeal against the cancellation of leave decision that accompanied the Secretary of State’s decision to exclude takes place from outside of the United Kingdom.

To be absolutely clear—I do not want noble Lords to feel that I am seeking to mislead them in any way—and as has been raised in previous debates, there is no policy of waiting for an individual to leave the United Kingdom before excluding them. Indeed, a series of deportation orders in cases in respect of national security activity are ongoing at the moment. However, in many of these cases we are talking about a situation where an individual leaves the United Kingdom for a period of time to meet with like-minded individuals and potentially to acquire new skills which, if utilised back in the United Kingdom, can pose a significant and serious threat to the population as a whole. That is why in such cases, having seen the intent of their activities while abroad, the Secretary of State takes the decision to exclude on the grounds of non-conduciveness. It would be a highly risky strategy to allow such individuals simply to come back to the United Kingdom and to exercise a right of appeal. It would also undermine a crucial disruption tool used for the protection of the general public.

Prisoners: Voting Rights

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It is an issue of enormous interest and concern, not only in your Lordships’ House and the other place but across the country.

This is not the first time the UK Government have had to look at this issue. As the noble Lord said, it has been controversial since the 2004 Hirst case, when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting was contrary to Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the convention. The Labour Government disagreed with the court’s decision. We appealed and we continued to challenge the decision until we lost office. There may be differences of view on this issue but the Labour Government provided clarity and a consistent position throughout our time in government.

One of my concerns now is the lack of consistency and the confused messages from this Government on the issue. Many of us will recall Prime Minister David Cameron’s comments in the House of Commons in November 2010 that it would make him,

“physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/2010; col. 921.]

As the Minister said, he has made similar comments since. Just a few weeks after those comments—in fact it was the last day in the Commons before the Christmas Recess in 2010—the Government snuck out a Written Statement announcing that prisoners on sentences of less than four years would get the vote. That would have meant roughly 30,000 prisoners getting the vote, nearly 8,000 of whom having been found guilty of violent and/or sexual offences, although other prisoners, presumably guilty of the same offences but serving slightly longer sentences, would not have got the vote. At the time, we asked the Government to share the legal advice on which the decision was based, but they refused to do so.

Then, following an overwhelming vote in the Commons in favour of the status quo on 10 February 2011, the Government appeared to abandon that policy and, this year, the Attorney-General again appealed to the European Court in the Grand Chamber and we supported that appeal. Then, just last month, the Guardian newspaper reported government plans for a draft Bill on prisoner voting. At the time, that was categorically denied by the Government, yet, four weeks later, we have a draft Bill. We need to digest the details of this draft Bill and will work with the Government to ensure that it receives the pre-legislative scrutiny that any such Bill deserves.

The Labour Opposition’s views on this issue are well known and well documented. We are unhappy with the European Court ruling on prisoner voting. It is not a case of our Government failing to hold free or fair elections, or of massive electoral fraud; this is about those convicted of an offence deemed so serious as to warrant a prison sentence being denied while they are in prison a number of rights and privileges, including the privilege of voting. The Labour Government remained consistently of the view that this should be within the margin of appreciation that nation states are given by the court.

Prison is a punishment, and we feel equally strongly about the state’s responsibilities aggressively to intervene to address offending behaviour of prisoners and to try to prevent reoffending. Improving physical and mental health, literacy, preparation and training for work and preparation for life outside prison are crucial ways in which any country should seek to end the cycle of offending. The notion that depriving a serving prisoner of the vote means that it is more likely that they will reoffend is absurd.

We have to respect, and will respect, the rule of law. We cannot abide just by those judgments that we agree with. We are mindful of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and of the way that it has protected human rights across Europe for more than six decades. However, we regret that the Government wasted the opportunity to reform the court during their recent chairmanship of the Council of Europe. They failed to secure changes that would have led to the court respecting the unique circumstances of each individual member country and have prevented it adjudicating on domestic social policy such as this.

Parliamentarians should know the Government’s legal advice on what is needed to discharge our obligations under the convention on human rights. We need full information and clarity on the ramifications of any decisions that Parliament may take, because there is a risk that choosing the wrong option could lead to compensation claims from prisoners and to us as a country being in breach of the rule of law.

We have again requested that the Government publish their legal advice so that Parliament can make an informed judgment. Does the Minister consider that it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House, the other place and any Joint Committee if the legal advice on which the draft Bill relies could be made available to Parliament? If not, why not?

How long do the Government anticipate the pre-legislative scrutiny lasting? My reason for asking is that the Government’s position on this issue has changed so often and caused so much uncertainty that it would be helpful for it to be clarified as soon as possible. When is Parliament likely to be able to vote on these options as the Government have outlined and are the Government likely to recommend any of the three options to Parliament?

This is an important issue that causes enormous concern in the country, in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, and we need clarity. On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister saying that even contemplating giving prisoners the vote makes him physically sick and the Government denying press reports that there would be a draft Bill, yet, on the other, we have a draft Bill being published today. Surely, on this issue, the Government should offer some consistency and leadership and be clear about their intentions.

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for that very constructive response and I accept immediately her offer to work with the Government to make this a constructive exercise. Obviously, the first objective will be to set up the Joint Committee and then to let it get down to its work. I hope that I have not damaged her political prospects too much.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I had not realised that I had been quite so constructive as the Minister thought.

[Lord McNally]

I am sure that when she reads Hansard she will agree with me, but if she wants to be more abusive to me in a letter, I shall put it in the Library of the House.

We can have analysis of how this issue has been handled during this past 10 years and whether there were better ways of doing it. The Statement today lets Parliament set out a path to resolving the issue which is sensible and which may help us get to a solution which addresses the complex and sometimes conflicting issues to which the noble Baroness referred. It is an acceptable view—I heard Mr Jack Straw express it again today—that denying prisoners the vote is a denial of civic and social rights but not of human rights, but the problem that we face is that the court has taken a different view and that we are legally committed to obey or recognise it. The Joint Committee will be able to listen to a wide range of views, which I am sure will be forthcoming.

It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not disclose their legal advice. However, on this exceptional basis and to facilitate appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of this issue, the Government will publish a summary of their legal position once the proposed Joint Committee convenes. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has also made it clear that the Government will try to give the committee all facilities and information to allow it to come to a considered judgment. We could have lots of fun debating who should have done what and when during this past decade, but today we can set off on a path which allows Parliament, with a full regard—this I do take from what the noble Baroness said—to the wider implications of whatever decision is taken, to take this matter forward. As always, we will listen carefully to the views of this House.

Child Abuse: Waterhouse Inquiry

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, that statement, coming from such a source, reinforces what I said. When we have asked a distinguished judge to carry out an inquiry, we have to be extremely careful as to whether they can be second guessed. I do not think that anything that the Prime Minister or the Government are doing calls into question the integrity of the Waterhouse inquiry. As we always are when distinguished judges take on these difficult tasks, we are in his debt for doing so. However, the review of the Waterhouse inquiry will look at whether any specific allegations of child abuse were not investigated. The serious allegations that have been made merit a further thorough investigation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who has tried to bring some clarity to a question that I asked when the Statement was made. I sought to know what was meant by,

“whether the … inquiry was properly constituted and did its job”.—[Official Report, 6/11/12; col. 896.]

He will understand the concern that has been raised about that kind of inquiry. Does that beg the wider question of whether all these separate inquiries that are taking place—I think there are 10 in total now—should be constituted into one overarching inquiry, where we can look at the relationship between the different investigations? Getting to a position where we could deal with all the allegations in one overarching inquiry would bring together the kind of issues that will have to be dealt with to stop this kind of abuse happening again.

[Lord McNally]

It is true that there is now a large number of inquiries. The noble Baroness says 10 and my brief says nine, but I take the point. The Government did not rule out an overarching inquiry, but there is a time to pause on this. Some of the accusations have been put into perspective by rushing to judgment in an overheated way, through Twitter and the new technologies that we live in. Those in authority need to have confidence. We are talking about child abuse; a very serious crime, which people who have evidence of should report to the police. It is not a responsibility of judicial inquiries to find wrongdoers. It is for the police, and if there are people with evidence, they should take it to the police.

There is public concern about whether Waterhouse missed anything. We have asked a distinguished judge to do a specific task in relation to that: to look at whether any specific allegations of child abuse were missed by that investigation and then to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Justice and the Secretary of State for Wales. That is the right place to be in.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith]

I will also speak to Amendments 34, 36, 37, 39 and 40, which are all in my name. This group covers three topics and I will deal with them shortly. Amendment 33 is really a probing amendment, relating to why there is a double court approval. I have previously talked about the importance of the court approval and nothing that I say now takes away from that. A court approval is important. I was looking forward to explaining to a packed Chamber how the Bill is structured. Sadly, we seem to have reached a moment when it is not as full as I was hoping.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

There is the quality.

EU: European Justice and Home Affairs Powers

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, when I read reports in the press and heard about this Statement this morning, I had hoped that we would get some clarity from the Statement about exactly what the Government’s plans involve. Having listened to the Home Secretary and the noble Lord, I am not much wiser. Rarely can a Statement have been so devoid of detail.

I have expressed my concerns before that Home Office Bills, specifically in relation to crime and courts, have come before this House before the detail has been worked out. The community sentencing clauses, for example, used a procedure of recommitting a Bill that I have never seen before in 15 years in both Houses.

I suspect that I know why. It is not often that we get Conservative Party policy from the Dispatch Box, particularly from a Lib Dem Minister, and that probably explains why there is a lack of clarity. If the press reports are to be believed, Liberal Democrat sources have played down the significance of today’s Statement. If I have understood the report correctly, the Home Secretary and the Minister today have “limited authority” in what they can say, because government policy has not yet been agreed. The Minister cannot go as far as the Prime Minister—I doubt that he would want to—when he said that the Government would opt out of all police and criminal justice measures.

I cannot recall any other Statement of such significance where a Secretary of State has announced that the Statement represents the Government’s “current thinking” and has added that “discussions are ongoing within government”. We all know what that means: it is the pro/anti EU tension at the heart of this Government that makes this announcement confused and shambolic and seem like yet another example of policy being drafted on the back of an envelope.

Several questions about the detail need to be answered. I apologise to the noble Lord for referring to detail, but the House deserves to have some. If the European arrest warrant had not been in place, what action would have been available to UK police in co-operating with their French counterparts to ensure that the French police were able to arrest Jeremy Forrest and ensure that he and Megan Stammers were returned to the UK in the same timescale? No one is suggesting that the European arrest warrant is perfect, but the independent Scott Baker report commissioned by the current Home Secretary strongly recommended keeping it. Yes, it could be improved and updated, and that very process is taking place now; it is being reformed. As a further example of this Statement being premature, the Government do not even know at this stage what they would be opting out of.

The European arrest warrant is responsible for nearly 600 criminals being returned to the UK to face trial. It has allowed 4,000 citizens from other European countries to be sent back to their home country or another European country to face justice. In light of some of the Government’s briefing on this issue, your Lordships’ House might like to be aware that 94% of those sent back to other European countries to face trial under the European arrest warrant are foreign citizens.

The Home Secretary has said that the Government may want to opt out—because no one is sure yet—and then may consider opting back in again. There is a process for opting back in, but can the Minister say what happens in the mean time—in that gap between opting out and trying to opt back in? What processes will be in place, and what happens if the opt back in is refused? My understanding is that Denmark has had around 50% of its applications to opt back in refused.

If the UK opts out of policing and criminal justice measures, what process do the Government envisage putting in place to deal with some hugely significant issues? These include: counterterrorism; the sharing of criminal records, including those of sex offenders; conventions to protect member states’ financial interests in the event of major international economic crime; minimum standards of collection of customs and police information to tackle cross-border crime; co-operation on the identification of laundered money; co-operation between member states in tracing and freezing criminal assets; and the setting up of Europol. That list is not exhaustive.

It would have been far more satisfactory if the Minister had been able to give us some clarity today, if he had been able to say which of those areas he would want the Government to opt back in to, and if he had been able to say why the Government think the position is so unsatisfactory that they are considering opting out of the entire police and criminal justice powers. Which of these are so offensive that the Government are prepared to put at risk European co-operation on some of the most serious and abhorrent crimes that damage British citizens? The Statement gives no reasons for the Government taking this view. There is no justification for this view, and there is no information on which provisions the Government think are valuable and would want to opt back into.

We have a process from the Government but we do not have a policy. The reason is that this is still only the Government’s current thinking, as the Minister stated, and discussions are still ongoing within the Government. Will anything ever change? It seems an absolute shambles. On issues as serious as this, this House and the public deserve better. This sounds too much like a political gimmick drummed up on the back of an envelope.

Prisoners: Transport

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking regarding the safety and reliability of the arrangements for transporting prisoners following the two recent ambushes and escapes.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the National Offender Management Service has taken immediate action to reinforce security procedures and staff have been instructed to ensure that these procedures are fully complied with.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord; that is a helpful Answer. There is a very good record on prison security, which is why these two armed ambushes and escapes are so shocking. The week before last the Minister confirmed to your Lordships’ House that,

“escape must be made impossible”—[Official Report, 24/1/12; col. WA 220]—

for Category A prisoners. The second prisoner who escaped had previously absconded from court, was sentenced for GBH in his absence, and was given an indeterminate sentence for public protection because of the seriousness of his crimes. I find it incredible that, despite all that, he was given a Category C prisoner status and deemed to be unlikely to escape. Will the Minister look into this, and can he make arrangements to assure himself that when prisoners are transported, the security category is double-checked or reassessed to minimise any risk to the public or to staff?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I appreciate the constructive nature of that question. I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate that a formal investigation is under way into the circumstances of both escapes, and the reports and recommendations will determine what further action may be required. A wider review is also under way into the procedures governing the escorting of prisoners outside of prisons, including the arrangements for transporting them. Her point about the categorisation of prisoners should, and I assume will be, part of that inquiry.

Social Mobility Strategy

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth welcomed the strategy, but he was obliged to give a list of actions by the Government that undermine the principle behind it. He missed one very important action, and that is the cuts that have been made to voluntary and community services and to charities, many of which have tried for many years to do invaluable work in helping social cohesion and looking to improve social mobility. In my own town HomeStart, a valuable organisation giving families the support they need in life, will close in the next few weeks because of cuts to its funding. How does that improve social mobility?

[Lord McNally]

I listened to the Statement at the other end. Local authorities across the country are making cuts and it is very easy for people to leap up and say, “How does this strategy match what is going on?”. This strategy is trying to deploy the fewer resources we have in a much more focused way. We are going through a period of economic difficulty and it will be easy to pick up on the impact of the various changes, but today we have laid out a strategy that focuses resources on the most needy and addresses some of the issues that have been identified as causing a lack of social mobility. What we cannot do is return public expenditure to the level at which it was being run by the previous Administration—who were, as the noble Baroness knows, planning to make cuts as well.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

My noble friend has reminded me of a point that I meant to make. At the moment there are 2,500 outstanding claims of compensation by prisoners being denied the vote, which, if they were proceeded with and accepted, would cost the taxpayer £100 million to meet.

This is not the time or place to debate at length the merits of votes for prisoners, but surely it is time that this outdated sentence of civic death upon prisoners was removed. It was imposed under the Forfeiture Act 1870, although in my opinion it should never have been, and it has lingered for far too long. As I said earlier, the European Court decided in 2004 that the blanket ban on the ability of convicted prisoners to vote was unlawful and should be removed. I much regret that the previous Government did not obey that judgment, and welcome the fact that this Government plan to do so.

It is all about enabling prisoners to take civic responsibility, which chimes in well with the extra emphasis by the Secretary of State for Justice on better attempts at rehabilitation to reduce the expensive and alarming rates of reconviction. Up to 70 per cent of prisoners are reconvicted within two years of release, surely the most enormous waste of taxpayers’ money going.

It is time for change and time to ensure that the number of prisoners anticipated under the proposed government legislation be entitled to vote, and those prisoners on remand from wherever they are on the electoral roll should not be overlooked when the maths is being done by the Electoral Commission to determine the new constituency boundaries.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Before my noble friend sits down, would he answer a question for me? In looking at his calculation of how many additional prisoners would be entered on to the electoral roll, is he aware of any estimate of how many prisoners were not on the electoral roll prior to them going to prison? There is a case to be answered that a number of prisoners who get into a life of crime lead somewhat chaotic lives and may never have voted or be on the electoral roll in the first place.

[Lord Corbett of Castle Vale]

I accept my noble friend’s point. Part of this touches on our earlier debates about the accuracy of the electoral register. It may well be that prisoners in that position should be encouraged to get on the electoral roll from the only address that they currently have, which would be prison.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I listened with great interest to my noble friend’s questions on this issue. It helps to understand the complexity of the issue facing the Government on giving prisoners the vote. I add a further complexity to the issue and the questions that my noble friend is posing. In this country, we allow those who are citizens of this country but who live overseas to register as overseas voters. Would we allow those serving sentences in prisons overseas to vote, and what arrangements could be made for them?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon asks a fine question, which I had not previously thought of. However, I am sure that the Minister will have done so, will not need to think on his feet at the Dispatch Box and will be able to give us a precise answer.

On the question about the timetable, it is highly pertinent whether it coincides with the Boundary Commission review period to agree the boundaries for the next general election. If it does not, which arrangements will stand the test of time in respect of prisoners getting the vote?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has said. Let me therefore briefly add some comments. When the time comes, which I hope will not be too long, for the Government to bring forward their measure to give prisoners the vote, we will have to ensure that in that process we amend this legislation to accommodate it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I understand the point that my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord are making, but surely the Bill before us seeks to set the boundaries before the next general election. I anticipate that if the Government put through legislation, in line with the European judgment, to give prisoners the vote, they will do so before the next election. We in this House and the other place will therefore have to amend legislation that we have already passed before the next election. We will find ourselves in a legal muddle at that point.

[Lord Dubs]

I am bound to say that I am persuaded by my noble friend’s argument. The principle and the arithmetic are obviously right, but the details of how prisoners are to be given the vote—and there will be a lot of details—are a matter that the House will have to deal with. However, that would not affect the principle of including prisoners in the formula that we are talking about.

I have been a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for some time, and we have been anxious that the Government should adhere to their obligations under the Human Rights Act and under the European convention. We were disappointed—I was certainly disappointed, as was my noble friend Lord Corbett—that the previous Government did not bring this proposal into effect. I hope that this Government will do so. Given that public opinion, spurred on by some of our newspapers, is not sympathetic to this, I very much hope that more voices will be heard to say that this is a good thing and that it is right that people in prison, at least many of them, should have the right to vote and to have a civic responsibility that will help them when they come out. There is an important point of principle here, which has been totally lost in some of the hysteria in the popular press, which is arguing against this, to say nothing of the fine that we would have to pay as a country.

I have two brief final thoughts. I introduced a Private Member’s Bill when I was in the other place to give certain rights to prisoners. My noble friend Lord Soley and I discussed it, and he persuaded me to include in the Bill a proposal to give prisoners the right to vote. It was a 10-Minute Rule Bill and was therefore not going to get much further. It received a lot of publicity, but all that the press were interested in—even in the 1980s; it was a long time ago—was the clause about giving prisoners the right to vote. Nothing else in the Bill did they take notice of. I am bound to say, in all honesty, that the Labour Shadow Cabinet did not support my Bill and said that it was not in favour of it.

I have a final little anecdote, if I may indulge myself—it is getting late. I was in a pub in Battersea just before an election. I was meeting a journalist who wanted to take a photograph. The pub was almost empty because it was mid-morning. A man at the bar came up to me and said, “’Ere, are you Alf Dubs MP?”. I confirmed that I was and he said, “I came out of the Scrubs this morning. You’ve got a good reputation inside”. I thought of all the votes that I was not going to get and I then lost my seat.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

The Bill is being considered, and considered on the basis of fairness. I know that the noble Baroness is often a lone voice on those Benches. My point, which is central to the issue of first past the post, is whether we are to continue to have the kind of distortion that produces majorities of 66 on 36 per cent and then no majority at all on 36 per cent. With those kinds of distortions with first past the post, the rot sets into people’s respect for the electoral system.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The noble Lord said a few minutes ago that Members on this side of the House were afraid of debating this Bill. I sat through most of the debate yesterday and have listened to most of it today and I have heard innumerable contributions from my noble friends debating the very essence of this Bill, while his Bench has been empty. Is it not an insult to suggest that it has not been debated by Members on this side?

[Lord McNally]

Let me give one example. The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, shed crocodile tears over the missing 7 per cent on the election. Where was the action from the Labour Government in 13 years to deal with those very issues?