Voting by Prisoners

Brian Binley Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

This has been a very interesting debate, and rather unusual for me. I have to confess that in most debates, I arrive knowing what I think on the subject, sit here waiting for my chance to say what I think, say what I think and then vote accordingly. On this subject, which is so complicated, I find that my views have shifted during the debate.

My views on prisoner voting have shifted very slightly. I am still of the view that all people convicted and given a prison sentence should lose their right to vote, but I was much struck and influenced by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who suggested that in the last six months of a sentence, as part of the rehabilitative process, the Parole Board or whatever is the right authority might give a person back that right if they were showing signs of becoming a good citizen. I have therefore changed my position. I still believe that all convicted prisoners should lose that right, but I am open to persuasion on the possibility of restoration of the vote in the last six months of a sentence.

Before I came to the debate, I was of the view that if the European Court imposed fines, we should simply refuse to pay them and challenge it to send a gunboat up the Thames to extract the money from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I would say good luck to it in that—I have tried to do so for my constituents on several occasions and so far not been very successful. That was my view before, but I was persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), who is no longer in his place, that we who believe in the rule of law and who want the laws that we pass in this place to be respected cannot allow a precedent to be created whereby it is okay to pick and choose which laws we obey and which judgments we accept. If we believe that the Hirst judgment is intolerable, we should go to the root of the problem and not try to evade the particular case.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

rose—

[Nick Boles]

I am sorry. I will not give way because we have very little time.

What is the root of the problem? I have reached the uncomfortable conclusion that the root of the problem is the nature and location of the Court. Good judges are not good judges just because they are qualified—although there have been questions about the qualifications of some ECHR judges—or because they understand the laws of the country and respect the right of the legislature to make them, and that their role is simply to interpret and apply them. Good judges are good because they are products of the society within which those laws are created and to which those laws are applied. Judges earn legitimacy to make judgments, tough as they may be. Because they are part of that society, they understand it—they are part of the warp and weft of it.

My fear is that the Strasbourg Court can never be that. That is why I agreed most with the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) when he described why incorporating the convention into our law and making it subject to the interpretation of the Supreme Court—our Court and our justices sitting not 300 yards from Parliament—was a way of making the convention, which is a fine document, something that the British people would come to respect and even love as part of their fundamental freedoms.

I hope that the debate will be one small step along the way to us saying to the Strasbourg Court: “Back in your box! Your role is to bring it to our attention—this Parliament’s attention—when you believe that our laws are out of kilter with the convention. But that is your role and no further. The specific questions of how the laws that we make apply to individual cases and citizens in this country should be for British judges in a British court.” In that way, we would have a law that we could all respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), who is no longer in his place—[Interruption.] Ah, there he is. I agree with many of the words he spoke. I also agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson)who said that we had heard a lot from lawyers. They indeed play an important role—dare I say it, some might say too important a role—in this House. Many of my friends are lawyers, so I would not go there. It is ironic, however, that the problem we are debating today can be placed at the very door of lawyers. I feel that sometimes they ought to take responsibility for such problems; they are the people who we need to solve them, yet it is they who have left us with a massive issue about sovereignty. We need to reflect on it and ensure that this House—and, frankly, not the lawyers—take the decisions. I also find it ironic that constitutionalists are split on this issue. I shall mention just two—because they suit my case. The first authority I shall quote is not considered to be a raging Tory. Indeed—

[Chris Bryant]

Lord Hoffmann.

[Mr Binley]

Yes, it is Lord Hoffmann, who said that it was

“not proper for a European supranational court to intervene in matters on which member states… have not surrendered their sovereign powers.”

I could go on and mention Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who said:

“International institutions which are set up by everyone become in practice answerable to no one”.

We should take note of what those wise men said. Indeed, we should take note of the many who argue that article 3 of protocol 1 does not constitute a universal right. Therein lies another legal argument for our lawyers to get stuck into.

I want to use my time to speak not about the voice of the law, but about the voice of the people I represent. That is what I think this House should primarily be about. Our constituents deserve to have their views heard, and I have taken much trouble to try to ascertain them. They agree with the sentiments I expressed in the Council of Europe only two weeks ago when I said that many Britons hold the view that restricting the vote of those who freely choose to place themselves outside the rule of law for their own personal gratification, gain or ambition is not a denial of human rights, but a choice those people make. That is simple stuff, not wrapped up in legal language, but we need to take note of it. My constituents also tell me that they are sick to death of the opportunist claims made for compensation, but they are especially sickened by the claim made by the racist John Hirst, who murdered his landlady with an axe. He does not deserve compensation, they tell me, and they do not believe that he cares about the vote either. What he does care about is the money he might get, which is another truth that we need to face up to.

The judgment of people in my constituency is thus quite clear. They say that they do not want prisoners to have the vote. They want to ensure that there is a price for prisoners to pay—a price to pay for those who place themselves of their own free will and volition outside the law. That, with respect, is my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). That matter needs to be taken into account too.

In the time left to me, I want to urge the Minister and the Prime Minister to recognise the dangers of such a judgment, not only for the European Court of Human Rights but for the whole concept of the European Union. European institutions continue to enlarge their own areas of decision making at the expense of sovereign Parliaments. If that continues, the institutions themselves will be at risk. The Government need to recognise that fact; more importantly, so do the European institutions. As we saw in eastern Europe and as we are seeing in north African states such as Egypt and in states all over the world, the people will be listened to in the end. That needs to be taken into account both by this Government and by the wider European institutions; they would do well to take heed of that.