United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The numbers in the House will not change. The numbers across the House will be the same. The desire of the House to be able to have a greater role in future will not change. I have made the commitment that I have in relation to the legislation in the withdrawal agreement Bill, and in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. In the next stage, it will be important for Parliament to have greater involvement, to be able to ensure that as we move forward together we get that right result for our country.
This is about our country. It is about our national interest. As I say, everyone will have to—[Interruption.] I will give way one last time.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. She says that this is about the country, but with respect, that is not how it is seen. Brexit—the withdrawal agreement and the referendum—has always been about the Conservative party.
The Prime Minister
This House, across all parties, voted for a referendum. This House, across all parties, voted to trigger article 50.
Voting by Prisoners
Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The debate is about whether prisoners should have the right to vote, but it seems to have been turned into an opportunity to bash the European Court of Human Rights, the convention and the Human Rights Act. That is completely unfair, because over the past 30 or 40 years the European Court has been making judgments in cases where it is now accepted that the correct decision was made.
We have heard constant references to Lord Hoffmann’s opinion. When I was training to be a barrister, I was told that citing dissenting and minority opinions of judges is the last refuge of a desperate advocate. Let me tell the House a little about Lord Hoffmann’s background, and let us see whether, by the end of that, people still believe that he is the man by whom one should judge whether the European Court is right or wrong.
I shall start with the case of Peter Sutcliffe. His last victim’s mother sued the police over the negligence of the investigation that led to her daughter’s death, but the House of Lords decided that the police and local authorities could not be sued for negligence in any actions that they took. That principle existed in our courts for 10 years until, eventually, it was challenged, and, believe it or not, it was the European Court in Strasbourg that said, “No, local authorities and public bodies can be responsible and can be sued when there has been a dereliction of duty.”
Cases of children who have been abused or not taken into care by local authorities—
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When I might have tried in the past to go through a history of a Member of the other place, I might have been called to order, so I wonder how much of this background we are going to get.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have to rule. Please, take your seat.
Sir Peter Bottomley has made a point of order and is absolutely correct. We should not mention another person in another place in that way, so I am sure that the hon. Lady does not need to continue down that line.
Yasmin Qureshi
If I may just finish, I should say that nobody now would think that suing a local authority or a public body over the negligence of their actions was wrong. So, using one person to criticise and castigate the whole European convention is plainly not right.
On prisoners’ right to vote, I know that some people say that, because the prisoner has committed the offence, all their rights should be taken away, but does that mean that we should go back 100 or 200 years when hard labour was considered to be the right punishment? I am sure that, in those days, when people said that our penal policies should be much more humane and liberal, just as many people said, “Oh no, these people have committed crimes and therefore should be punished to the hilt.” As we did not adhere to those policies then, why are we reacting so strongly to this issue now?
I agree with several Members who have said that, in reality, the number of prisoners who exercise the right will probably be quite small. In my years before becoming a Member, I represented and prosecuted many defendants, and I met many people who became prisoners, so I can say, anecdotally, that most of them are unlikely to vote, but the question is one of principle: what do we as a society and as a nation stand for?
Many years ago, we abolished the death penalty, bar for two offences: high treason and burning Her Majesty’s shipyard. A few years ago, a Labour Government abolished the death penalty even for those offences. Why did they do that? We had not issued the death penalty to anyone since the ’60s, but we abolished it for those two offences because we felt that as a society in the 21st century that was the right thing to do. A point of principle was involved, and for me the issue of prisoners’ rights is a point of principle, too.
The disfranchisement of sentenced prisoners dates back to the Forfeiture Act 1870, and the origins of the ban are rooted in the notion of civic death: a punishment entailing the withdrawal of citizenship rights. But Dr Selby, the former bishop of Her Majesty’s prisons, and now the president of the National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards, states:
“Denying convicted prisoners the right to vote serves no purpose”—