1 Introduction
1. On 22 November 2012 the Lord Chancellor, the Rt
Hon Chris Grayling MP, in a statement to the House of Commons,[1]
announced the publication of the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)
Bill.[2]
2. The draft Bill sets out three legislative options
in respect of prisoner voting. Option 1 would allow all convicted
prisoners serving sentences of less than four years to vote in
parliamentary and other elections; Option 2 would allow all convicted
prisoners serving sentences of six months or less to vote; Option
3 would re-state the existing prohibition on all convicted prisoners
voting, which is contained in section 3 of the Representation
of the People Act 1983.
3. The Government brought forward the draft Bill
as a result of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights
(the "ECtHR"), in the 2004 case of Hirst v United
Kingdom (No. 2).[3]
In that case the Court found that the UK's longstanding prohibition
on convicted prisoners voting was incompatible with Article 3
of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights
("the Convention)), which requires signatory states to "hold
free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under
conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion
of the people in the choice of the legislature." Under Article
46(1) of the Convention signatory states are also required to
implement judgments of the ECtHR in any case to which they are
a party.
4. Following the Hirst judgment the previous
Government conducted two public consultations on prisoner voting;
the present Government also sought to persuade the ECtHR to reverse
its decision by intervening in a similar case involving Italy.
The consultations were inconclusive, and the attempt to persuade
the ECtHR to reverse its decision proved fruitless. On 22 May
2012 the ECtHR accordingly gave the United Kingdom until 23 November
2012 to bring forward legislative proposals to implement the Hirst
judgment. The draft Bill was published on that day.
5. The House of Commons had in the meantime, on 10
February 2011, voted overwhelmingly in favour of a motion stating
the House's support for continuance of the prohibition on prisoner
voting, and affirming that "legislative decisions of this
nature should be a matter for democratically-elected lawmakers."[4]
The inclusion of Option 3 in the Draft Bill is in part an acknowledgement
of the clearly expressed views of the elected House.
6. At the same time as announcing publication of
the draft Bill the Lord Chancellor announced that a Joint Committee
of both Houses would be appointed to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny.
But he made it clear that, unlike most committees conducting pre-legislative
scrutiny, this Joint Committee would have an open-ended remit:
"The draft Bill sets out three different
potential approaches for the Committee to consider … However,
it will of course be for the Committee, once established, to consider
whether approaches beyond those canvassed in the draft Bill should
also be considered by Parliament in due course."[5]
7. Many of our witnesses suggested that the issue
of prisoner voting is not, in itself, of utmost significance.
But, as this brief summary of the background to our inquiry shows,
the ramifications extend far wider than the question of whether
a few thousand prisoners should be entitled to vote in general,
local or European Parliamentary elections. We have accordingly
produced a wide-ranging report, which in places steps back from
the specifics of the draft Bill and explores fundamental issues
around the nature of rights in the United Kingdom and our place
in the international community.
8. Ultimately, UK law can only be changed by an Act
of Parliament, and any Bill brought forward either by the present
or a future Government will be fully debated. We hope that our
Report will inform these debates, and that it will clarify the
issues on which Parliament as a whole will, in the end, decide.
1 HC Deb., 22 November 2012, cols 745-762 Back
2
Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Draft Bill, (November 2012), Cm
8499; hereafter referred to as the "draft Bill". Back
3
Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2) (2005), ECHR 681, hereafter
referred to as Hirst Back
4
HC Deb., 10 February 2011, cols 493-586 Back
5
HC Deb., 22 November 2012, col. 746 Back
|
