§ 2.56 p.m.
§ The Lord Bishop of Worcester:My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as the Bishop to Her Majesty's Prisons.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights the judgment of that court in Hirst v United Kingdom concerning a violation of Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European convention in the matter of the denial to all sentenced prisoners of the right to vote.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin):My Lords, it has been the view of successive governments, including this Government, that persons who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence should forfeit the right to have a say in how the country is governed while they are detained. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hirst case challenges this position. We wish to ensure that the issues in relation to this important and long-standing policy are fully considered.
§ The Lord Bishop of Worcester:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, particularly for the fact that he has not sought to suggest that the present blanket disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners serves any useful purpose. Would it not be better now for the Government, given the unanimous ruling of the court, to proceed to the drafting of legislation that would allow the courts to impose a sentence of disenfranchisement as an additional penalty when they thought it appropriate? Would not such legislation mean that there were voters in our prisons and, therefore, that prospective and present Members of the other place would have an incentive to have considerable interest in what goes on there and support the Government's rehabilitation policies? Might not those rehabilitation policies be further advanced by the teaching of citizenship in relation to the right to vote?
§ Lord Filkin:My Lords, my answer is no to the first question and probably no to many of the subsequent ones. The central question concerned whether we should start drafting legislation. The answer to that is no, because we believe that we have an arguable case. We think that it is an important issue. It has been part 1243 of the tradition of this society for very many years. It has also been a policy that has been tested by the opinion of both Houses of Parliament as recently as 2000, under the Representation of the People Act, when we introduced a modification to allow prisoners held on remand to vote—but not wider than that. Therefore, we, along with many other member countries in the Council of Europe, think that we are right in our policy position.
§ Lord Lester of Herne Hill:My Lords, perhaps I may make a prediction, which is that the Government will now be humiliated by the Grand Chamber if they insist on taking this case before that court. As the right reverend Prelate has indicated, this was a unanimous decision. It included Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British judge; and it was a balanced judgment. The Minister has not yet told the House—I should be grateful if he would—why the Government disagree with the decision that legislation is disproportionate if it disqualifies 70,000 convicted prisoners of the right to vote, irrespective of sentence and irrespective of the nature and gravity of the offence. How can that demonstrate a proper sense of proportion?
§ Lord Filkin:My Lords, now is not the time to engage in the hearing that will go before the Grand Chamber. I shall refer to a specific issue. One of the central arguments given by the court was the recognition of a large measure of discretion for nation states in this respect. While recognising that, the judgment did not appear to apply that test to its own judgment. It did not in any way indicate the limits of the discretion that the court thought would be appropriate.
§ Lord Dholakia:My Lords, does the Minister accept that the right to vote is fundamental to our democratic values? It is accepted that those who are convicted lose certain rights, but that has nothing to do with control and discipline in prisons. Therefore, it is important that those democratic rights are valued so far as concerns our inmates.
§ Lord Filkin:My Lords, it is in part because we believe that active participation in democracy is important in our society that the state takes the view, as have many previous governments, that people who, by their actions, have breached that contract should for the limited period that they are in prison lose that right. Of course, the nature of imprisonment is that a person loses a range of rights. That is an unfortunate but necessary part of the prison process.
§ Lord Avebury:My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is not in the nature of imprisonment that a prisoner should lose his rights because, otherwise, that principle would be applied to remand prisoners as well? Can he say which other western European countries adopt a blanket ban on prisoners' voting rights?
§ Lord Filkin:My Lords, it would take too long to give the full list but I shall write to the noble Lord. 1244 However, perhaps I can summarise it. Eighteen out of 51 Council of Europe countries have no restrictions; nine have a prohibition on all prisoners; some, like Ireland, while having no legal prohibition, offer no practical rights and therefore, in practice, prisoners are not able to vote; and others have a range of restrictions according to the severity of the sentence. I shall write with full details of all such countries.
§ Baroness Stern:My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Canadian Supreme Court decided that Canadian prisoners must retain their right to vote because that helps to train them in citizenship and it helps their social reintegration? Does the Minister see any merit in those arguments?
§ Lord Filkin:My Lords, we are aware of that debate and our position in this respect is quite clear, as is that of both Houses of Parliament. These are not simple issues. Nevertheless, for many years it has been part of our society's tradition that, when people are imprisoned, they lose a range of rights, one of which is the right to participate in elections.