Tuesday, 08, Feb 2011 12:18
By Alex Stevenson
Later this week MPs will be dividing on one of the most divisive issues of early 2011 - prisoner voting. Whips have relinquished their grip for once, meaning backbenchers have a free hand in deciding which way to go.
This matters, because the European court of human rights (ECHR) is posing a challenge. It recently ruled that prisoners must be granted the vote. But Tory MPs, in particular, aren't keen on the idea of giving criminals a say in deciding who runs the country. The fact that it's a European court which is overriding them makes the issue more potent still.
This all explains why the backbench business committee has decided to put the matter to the test this Thursday. MPs will decide whether they want to overrule the ECHR. Ministers will abstain, as will members of the shadow Cabinet, making this a genuinely free vote. If they decide to defy the ECHR they'll have to pay compensation claims from inmates expected to be worth at least £100 million.
Or will they? Unfortunately for people who believe in the notion of parliamentary sovereignty, the answer is 'not necessarily'.
As the prime minister's spokesman explained to journalists, "we'll listen to what parliament has to say". But it won't be bound by what the Commons says. If a British court awards compensation to someone and parliament says it shouldn't be paid, it would be difficult for the government to go with parliament over a court, Downing Street said. "The government has to comply with the law. If a British court rules something is illegal, parliament has to comply with the law."
So the Commons will express its view on Thursday, but the government won't have to do anything about it. Parliament is only sovereign when it comes to making laws.
David Morgan, a constitutional expert at the Open University, summed up: "It's a bit of moral pressure put on the government."
It's the principle that matters, of course. Even though the decision itself is not binding, ministers will be armed with the ammunition they need to pressure Europe - or even take firmer action.
In the context of the broad narrative of British politics, this might seem like a sideshow. It's hardly spending cuts, is it? But it matters. Priti Patel, an Essex Conservative MP, sums up the mood. "My constituents and people across the country are fed up with Europe meddling in our domestic affairs and human rights being used as an excuse for being soft on crime and letting criminals off the hook," she says. "Europe's decision to attack our laws... is disgraceful. This case is yet another reason why parliament needs to assert its sovereignty over Europe and ensure that British people make British laws."
Prisoner voting goes against most of the Conservatives' deepest instincts: a rejection of European interference and a tough stance on law and order. But they don't have a majority in the Commons, so even if they were to vote en masse there would not be the victory Patel and others are seeking. It will be up to Labour and the Lib Dems to make up parliament's mind on the issue.
Lib Dems, pro-European and extremely pro-human rights, can be expected to point out that even those in jail deserve a vote. It might seem far-fetched, but some are pointing out giving prisoners the vote acts as a deterrent to governments jailing large numbers of people to prevent them having their say. Their instincts are to back the European court.
Labour MPs face the real test: the decisions of individual MPs about where their priorities lie will reveal much about whether the party has moved on from its anti-civil liberties impulses of the New Labour era. Is the new generation really that new? We're about to find out.
Comment: I don’t know why Google Alert did not pick up on this article and email me until almost a month after it had been published. In any event, having read it I would question the use of “Analysis” in the title because the article is devoid of any analysis whatsoever. Then there is “Prisoner voting matters (sort of)” and am puzzled if it is a reference to the subject matter being prisoner voting, or a statement claiming that it matters that prisoners should get the vote in society. I wonder ‘Who is this guy Alex Stevenson who has written the piece?’. I click on his name and discover that he is a “Westminster Lobby journalist for politics.co.uk”. This probably explains why he has not got a clue what he is writing about.
I have often heard the saying “ayes to the right, no's to the left” after watching a debate in the Commons; therefore it comes as no surprise to me that “MPs will be dividing” one way or the other. What is a surprise, though, is that the issue of prisoners’ votes is “one of the most divisive issues”. Given the decision in Hirst v UK (No2) in favour of prisoners’ votes, and the obligation upon the UK to abide by the Court decision, I do not see it as a divisive issue. I think there is something undemocratic about Whips dictating how MPs should exercise their vote, and feel that MPs should vote according to their conscience (that’s if they have one!). According to Wikipedia: “An express instruction how to vote could constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege, so the party's wishes are expressed unequivocally but indirectly”. I also think there is something undemocratic about a backbench issue being raised in the Commons, and backbench MPs having a free vote, whilst at the same time the Whips ensure that frontbench MPs abstain from the vote.
The so-called free vote “matters because the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is posing a challenge”. Given that I posed the challenge to s.3 of ROPA 1983, and the Court decided the issue in my favour, I would say that the Court is not actually posing a challenge at all. Surely the is about perception and deception rather than reality? I would hardly call a 2004 decision by the Court “recently ruled”. Alex Stevenson claims “Tory MPs, in particular, aren't keen on the idea of giving criminals a say in deciding who runs the country”. That’s a bit rich given MPs fiddling their expenses, and the likes of Lord Ashcroft and Rupert Murdoch! He goes on to say “The fact that it's a European court which is overriding them makes the issue more potent still”. But, is it a fact? The Court is not overriding Tory MPs at all; rather its ruling overrode s.3 of ROPA 1983.
So, when Alex Stevenson claims “This all explains why the backbench business committee has decided to put the matter to the test this Thursday”, it has to be said that it explains sweet nothing! “MPs will decide whether they want to overrule the ECtHR”. Given that the UK has signed up to abide by the Convention and part of this states that the Court decision is final, being a lawyer, I have to ask the question ‘Upon what lawful authority do they act?’. “Ministers will abstain, as will members of the shadow Cabinet, making this a genuinely free vote”. So, it’s a free vote, but it’s not a free vote. “If they decide to defy the ECtHR they'll have to pay compensation claims from inmates expected to be worth at least £100 million”. Actually, they won’t have to pay the compensation, presently standing at £135m; the taxpayers will have to pay. Once again MPs are playing loose with the public purse.
You can tell that the immigrant-stock Priti Patel, is an Essex Girl, when she comes out with this stupid statement “This case is yet another reason why parliament needs to assert its sovereignty over Europe and ensure that British people make British laws”. Given that her parents are Ugandan Indian immigrants, it is laughable that she claims to speak for the British people. And even more ludicrous that she believes that the UK Parliament has sovereignty over Europe! She only got on the Conservative A List because of her colour and being a woman, and not because of merit. She is happy to engage in discrimination when it suits her, and has even attacked the judges of the ECtHR for being foreign! She is very prejudiced in her outlook towards prisoners who are victims of human rights abuse. When I think of her, I am reminded of the Capos in concentration camps who collaborated with the Nazi regime.
No comments:
Post a Comment