Letter from the Chair of the Committee
to Rt Hon Michael Wills MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice,
dated 17 December 2009
Hirst (No 2) v United Kingdom
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is continuing
its practice of monitoring the Government's response to adverse
human rights judgments. During our evidence session on 2 December
2009, we asked you for further information in respect of the Government's
consultation on prisoners' voting rights. Since that session,
the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers has issued an interim
resolution in respect of the delay in that case. The interim resolution
is a significant and serious step and is couched in unambiguous
terms. The Committee of Ministers "expresses serious concern
that the substantial delay in implementing the judgment has given
rise to a significant risk that the next United Kingdom general
election... will be performed in a way that fails to comply with
the Convention".[40]
On 15 December 2009, you responded to a written
question by Mark Oaten MP, "noting" the interim resolution
and again confirming that the Government was considering the outcome
of its second consultation on this issue.[41]
On the same day, Lord Bach gave a similar response to an oral
question by Lord Ramsbottom. He explained that the Government
would "respond when we are ready to respond" and that
it was the Government's view that the legality of the election
would not be affected by the ongoing incompatibility with the
ECHR caused by the blanket ban on prisoner voting.[42]
The UK is now under an obligation to give effect
to that judgment, including to avoid further repeat future violations
(Article 46, ECHR). Although the judgment has no direct effect
in our domestic legal system and cannot directly change the law,
the UK is under an international legal obligation to act.
I would be grateful if you could:
— provide a fuller explanation of the Government's
response to the Interim Resolution of the Committee of Ministers.
In particular:
— please explain, how the Government intends
to respond to the Committee of Ministers' call on the UK to "rapidly
adopt the measures necessary to implement the judgment of the
Court".
In the past, the Government has explained its
view that it will be difficult to create a Parliamentary consensus
on this issue.[43]
You have explained that the Constitutional Reform and Governance
Bill, currently before Parliament, could not provide an appropriate
vehicle for reform, as to do so would make it a "Christmas
tree" Bill.[44]
— In the light of the concerns of the Council
of Europe, will the Government reconsider bringing forward amendments
to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to implement
the Hirst judgment?
— The Government has explained its view
that the Hirst judgment cannot effect the domestic legality of
the forthcoming elections. Please explain the Government's view
of the the UK's international law obligations arising from the
Hirst judgment.
— What stance on this case does the Government
propose to take at the Committee of Ministers meeting in March
2010, should no further progress have been made?
40 Interim Resolution CM/Res. Back
41
HC Deb, 15 Dec 2009, Col 1043 W. Back
42
HC Deb, 15 Dec 2009, Col 1393-1394. This repeats a view expressed
in your letter dated 8 October 2009. Back
43
Fourth Report of Session 2008-09, Political Parties and Elections
Bill, para 1.15-1.16. Back
44
Uncorrected transcript, 2 December 2009. Back
| 
