8 The way forward
The views of the Committee
229. We accept, on the basis of the evidence we
have heard in the course of this inquiry, that the United Kingdom
is under a binding international law obligation to comply with
the Hirst judgment. We also understand that it would be
completely unprecedented for any state that has ratified the European
Convention on Human Rights to enact legislation in defiance of
a binding ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. Under
domestic law Parliament can of course legislate as it sees fit;
but if it wishes to uphold the United Kingdom's long tradition
of respect for and attachment to the rule of law, Parliament should
either enact legislation complying with the Hirst judgment
or take steps to denounce the Convention, of which the United
Kingdom itself, in the years following the Second World War, was
the prime mover. The latter outcome is not one that we could countenance
in respect of an issue of modest practical importance.
230. We note the recent and continuing reform of
the Court, and, while it falls outside the scope of our inquiry,
we also recognise the need for further reform of the Court and
in particular of its relationship to democratically elected national
legislatures. We also note the concern of the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe to help the United Kingdom find a way
out of the current crisis, which threatens the entire Convention
system.
231. We understand the symbolic force of the current
prohibition on convicted prisoners voting, but the arguments for
relaxing this prohibition are, on any rational assessment, persuasive.
The Government has failed to advance a plausible case for the
prohibition in terms of penal policy—disenfranchisement
linked to detention is an ineffective and arbitrary punishment,
particularly for the tens of thousands of prisoners serving short
sentences who pass through the prison system each year. There
is no evidence that disenfranchisement plays any part in deterring
crime. Insofar as penal policy has a bearing on prisoner voting,
the strongest argument we have heard is that there could be potentially
a mild rehabilitative effect if some prisoners were to be enfranchised.
232. We acknowledge that public opinion appears at
present to be against prisoners voting. However, it is difficult
to judge how deep-rooted these views are, given that the debate
over prisoner voting has so often been lost in the wider debate
over the United Kingdom's relationships both with the European
Court of Human Rights and the European Union. The public has yet
to be presented either with the clear evidence that the current
prohibition is both arbitrary and ineffective, or with the arguments
in favour of granting some prisoners the vote. We note that of
the 47 Council of Europe member states, the United Kingdom is
one of only five that maintain a comprehensive prohibition on
prisoner voting, the others being Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia and
Russia.
233. The Lord Chancellor invited us to recommend
a Bill containing both compliant and non-compliant options. He
suggested that "it [is] better—in order to promote
a sensible debate in this matter—to lay the options on the
table before it, rather than wait for the inevitable Back-Bench
amendment that would do the same job anyway."[237]
234. We agree with the Lord Chancellor that if the
Government were to introduce a Bill enfranchising any or all prisoners,
there would almost certainly be amendments reasserting the current
complete prohibition. But we do not believe that the Government
itself should be proposing to Parliament an option that it knows
to be unlawful. Ministers of the Crown are under a clear duty
to present a Bill to Parliament that fulfils the United Kingdom's
international law obligation under Article 46 of the Convention.
235. Once such a Bill has been introduced, it is
of course likely that amendments re-stating the existing prohibition
on prisoner voting will be tabled and debated in both Houses.
We also note that there is no procedural bar to introducing the
same Bill to both Houses simultaneously. Members of the two Houses
will then examine their own consciences before deciding how to
vote. This Committee considers that it would be wholly disproportionate
for Parliament to take the grave step of undermining the international
rule of law, which the United Kingdom has worked for so many decades
to defend and promote, for the sake of a small modification of
domestic law.
236. The Committee therefore recommend that Parliament
should comply with the Court's judgment in Hirst by enacting
legislation that would confer voting rights on some convicted
prisoners. Having considered the options in the draft Bill, and
others that were placed before us, we have found that the most
persuasive argument was that those sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of 12 months or less should retain the right to vote. Twelve months
is the maximum period of imprisonment that a magistrates' court
can impose for multiple offences, and setting the threshold at
this level would mean that only those sentenced in the Crown Court
to a longer term of imprisonment would lose the right to vote.
The 12-month threshold also has historical justification, corresponding
broadly to the position that pertained at the time the UK ratified
the Convention and the First Protocol.
237. We also support enfranchising prisoners in the
period leading up to release; this should be linked to a programme
of civic education, to help prisoners prepare for their return
to the community. We therefore recommend that prisoners should
be entitled to apply, six months before their scheduled release
date, to be registered to vote in the constituency into which
they are due to be released.
238. In reaching these conclusions, we have proposed
a statutory framework which we believe to be proportionate, but
which retains a prohibition on those convicted of particularly
serious crimes voting.
Recommendations
239. We recommend that the Government bring forward
a Bill, at the start of the 2014 -15 session of Parliament,
to give legislative effect to the following conclusions:
- That all prisoners serving
sentences of 12 months or less should be entitled to vote in all
UK parliamentary, local and European elections;
- That such prisoners should be registered to
vote in the constituency where they were registered prior to sentencing;
and that, where there is no identified prior residence, they should
be able to register by means of a declaration of local connection;
- That prisoners should be entitled to apply,
6 months before their scheduled release date, to be registered
to vote in the constituency into which they are due to be released.
237 Q 210 Back
| 
