That is a serious worry. If this proposal were agreed, the BNP would probably be able to stand in about 73 more constituencies for the same amount of money. The freepost mailing is worth about £15,000, so it does not require rocket science to work out that the measure would be giving a benefit worth about £1 million to the BNP. Surely there should be some checks and balances in place to prevent candidates who do not have substantial public support from gaining such an advantage at the expense of the hard-pressed taxpayer. This measure is a change too far, and I hope that the Minister will think again. It beggars belief that the Labour party would want to support a proposal that would help such extreme individuals.
That said, I ought to mention two or three proposals that we do support, apart from those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire. It is right that victims of domestic violence and members of the armed forces who are under threat should be able to register anonymously. We also like the idea of lowering the age for candidates; that was something that we suggested. There is a spirit of co-operation to that extent.—[Interruption.] I mentioned a few others along the way.
Finally, may I say something about the issue of prisoners voting? This should be debated in Parliament, and the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling is an affront to the House. The Court argued that the fact that Parliament had not divided on the issue was a justification for foreign judges overruling British law.
The prohibition on convicted burglars, muggers, rapists and murderers having the right to vote reflects, I believe, our political, social and cultural values in the United Kingdom. We believe that a jail sentence—by definition, a serious punishment—involves the temporary loss of freedom, including the right to vote. In fact, the last time this matter was discussed here, in 1999, it was not divided on because it was thought that we all agreed about it. I hope that Parliament will be given the opportunity to make that point clear to our friends overseas, because this Parliament should be able to decide such matters.
The Government have an opportunity with the Bill to restore the cross-party consensus on electoral law. They can restore the trust, integrity and confidence in the British electoral system, but the Bill is a wasted opportunity. We need bold action. In the 21st century, we perhaps need even a new politics, but we do not need a return to the older politics of corrupt elections, which we put behind us a century ago. That must not be allowed to happen; we deserve a better Bill than this.
Electoral Administration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Oliver Heald
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Electoral Administration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c209-10 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:08:36 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269420
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269420
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269420