Employing ex-offenders is a result worth paying for

Mark Johnson guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 February 2011 16.30 GMT

The votes for prisoners debate was a circus for clowns who kept missing the point. I've lost count of the interviews that I've declined to take part in on this subject because I don't want to add to all the noise about it. But the fact is that the rest of Europe regards voting as a human right. Politicians such as Tory MP David Davis, who talk about offenders losing their rights because they have "broken their contract" do not understand that where most offenders come from, contracts aren't meaningful. And their education has been given such a low priority that they probably couldn't read the small print anyway.

The ballot box has little relevance to many of the prisoners I meet on the wings: a drug-addicted offender with mental health issues has other priorities. But even if every one of them was a willing participant, our politicians know that 85,000 votes from people who are otherwise voiceless will make no difference to an election result. Playing to the baying mob on a safe ticket of self-righteous condemnation might just win a few seats. So no prizes for guessing that our politicians have opted for the moral low ground.

When someone commits a crime, he is punished by losing his freedom. If prisons really were places of rehabilitation, then reintroduction to society should be an important part of that process, which must involve understanding society's structure and voting. Excluding prisoners is the very opposite of what we need to do.

Click here to read full article:http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/15/employing-ex-offenders-result-worth-paying-for?CMP=twt_gu

Ministers mull prisoner vote options after MPs back ban

Ministers are considering how to respond to MPs' decision to reject a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling that a blanket ban on prisoners voting in the UK is unlawful.

MPs voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to keep the existing ban in place, adding to pressure on ministers on the issue.

A European body has urged the UK to ignore the Commons vote, saying it was "deeply disappointed" by it.

Ministers say they will do the "minimum to comply" with the ECHR ruling.

Cabinet Office officials said they are "considering their next steps" after MPs backed a cross-party motion opposing the Strasbourg court's ruling and urging the final decision on which prisoners should have the right to vote to reside with Parliament.

The whole article can be read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428488

Parliament has decided against votes for prisoners. So what happens now?

So the Commons has voted overwhelmingly against giving prisoners the vote. It’s a good day for our democracy.

As a “free vote” it was one of those rare occasions on which MPs are allowed to actually think for themselves, rather than be herded into the division lobbies by the parties. Perhaps we should have rather more of them? Just a thought.

Anyway, the motion – passed by 234 to 21 – is pretty unambiguous:

“That this House notes the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v the United Kingdom in which it held that there had been no substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification for maintaining a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote; acknowledges the treaty obligations of the UK; is of the opinion that legislative decisions of this nature should be a matter for democratically-elected lawmakers; and supports the current situation in which no prisoner is able to vote except those imprisoned for contempt, default or on remand.”

So what happens now? There are a number of different possibilities:

A) The Government does nothing, and waits to see what the European Court does.

The PM has previously argued that inaction would lead to hefty fines from the Court. But in the debate today Jack Straw also dismissed fears over compensation claims: “Unless the Strasbourg court now sees the purpose of compensation as some kind of gratuitous fine on the elected British House of Commons, I fail to see by what algebra or alchemy any court could equate the absence of a vote in prison, which almost no prisoners of their own volition ever sought, and which still fewer would exercise, with some monetary amount.”

B) The Government proposes a compromise, and Parliament votes again.


The expectation of most journalists is that the government will compromise, and will make a proposal to allow some prisoners the vote (perhaps those serving less than six months, say). That could be challenged by another vote in parliament. However, if the government has proposed a compromise, it will try to whip it through, rather than allowing another free vote of the kind that happened today. It’s not at all clear how MPs would vote.

I suspect a lot of the rebels would climb down or abstain if the thumbscrews were applied. And most Labour MPs abstained today. If they voted for a compromise to give some prisoners the vote, then it is very unlikely the rebels would succeed.

But having voted against giving prisoners the vote once, some might be tempted to do the consistent thing, and vote against it again. And, as I wrote yesterday, it isn’t what their constituents want.

C) The Government proposes a compromise, and Parliament doesn’t vote again.


Perhaps the government can avoid a further vote in Parliament. If it does, then we will have to wait and see whether the court strikes down that compromise. If it does, then we will be right back to square one…

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100075585/parliament-has-decided-against-votes-for-prisoners-so-what-happens-now/