Formal Minutes
Wednesday 11 December 2013
Members present:
Mr Nick Gibb MP, in the Chair
| Lord Dholakia
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Peston
| | Mr Crispin Blunt MP
Steve Brine MP
Lorely Burt MP
Sir Alan Meale MP
Derek Twigg MP
|
Draft Report (Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill),
proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft
Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 12 read and agreed to.
Paragraph—(Lord Peston)—brought
up, read the first and second time, and inserted (now paragraph
13).
Paragraphs 13 to 45 (now paragraphs 14 to 46) read
and agreed to.
Paragraph 46 (now paragraph 47) read, amended and
agreed to.
Paragraphs 47 to 53 (now paragraphs 48 to 54) read
and agreed to.
Paragraph 54 (now paragraph 55) read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 55 to 71 (now paragraphs 56 to 72) read
and agreed to.
Paragraph 72 (now paragraph 73) read and agreed to.
Paragraphs 73 to 109 (now paragraphs 74 to 110) read
and agreed to.
Paragraphs—(Crispin Blunt)—brought
up and read, as follows:
111. We agree with the evidence of Lord Mackay
of Clashfern, that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
is not an argument against giving effect to the judgment of the
European Court of Human Rights.
112. Parliament remains sovereign, but that sovereignty
resides in Parliament's power to withdraw from the Convention
system; while we are part of that system we incur obligations
that cannot be the subject of cherry picking.
113. A refusal to implement the Court's judgment
would not only undermine the international standing of the UK;
it would also give succour to those states in the Council of Europe
who have a poor record of protecting human rights and who may
draw on such an action as setting a precedent that they may wish
to follow.
Question put, That the paragraphs be read a second
time.
The Committee divided.
Contents, 7 Not Contents,
3
| Crispin Blunt MP
Lorely Burt MP
Lord Dholakia
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
Sir Alan Meale MP
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Peston
| Steve Brine MP
Nick Gibb MP
Derek Twigg MP
|
Paragraphs (now paragraphs 111 to 113) inserted.
Amendment to the title of Chapter 5 proposed and
agreed to—(Lorely Burt).
Paragraphs 110 to 122 (now paragraphs 114 to 126)
read and agreed to.
Paragraph 123 (now paragraph 127) read and agreed
to.
Paragraphs 124 to 137 (now paragraphs 128 to 141)
read and agreed to.
Paragraph—(Lorely Burt)—brought
up, read the first and second time, and inserted (now paragraph
142).
Paragraph 138 (now paragraph 143) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 139 (now paragraph 144) read, amended and
agreed to.
Paragraphs 140 to 148 (now paragraphs 145 to 153)
read and agreed to.
Paragraph 149 (now paragraph 154) read, amended and
agreed to.
Paragraphs 150 to 152 (now paragraphs 155 to 157)
read and agreed to.
Paragraph 153 (now paragraph 158) read and agreed
to.
Amendment to the title of Chapter 6 proposed and
agreed to—(Lorely Burt).
Paragraphs 154 to 184 (now paragraphs 159 to 189)
read and agreed to.
Paragraph 185 (now paragraph 190) read and agreed
to.
Paragraphs 186 to 221 (now paragraphs 191 to 226)
read and agreed to.
Paragraph 222 (now paragraph 227) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 223 (now paragraph 228) read and agreed
to.
Paragraphs 224 to 232 (Chapter 8) read as follows:
Chapter 8: The way forward
224. Parliament has a choice: to comply with the
judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst,
or to refuse to comply with that judgment. The Lord Chancellor
invited us to put both compliant and non-compliant options to
Parliament, alongside the political and legal consequences that
flow from them. 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."[238]
225. We agree with the Lord Chancellor that, were
the Government to introduce a Bill enfranchising any or all prisoners,
there would almost certainly be amendments reasserting the current
complete prohibition. At the same time, we are not persuaded that
Parliament should be presented with a complex menu of options
for compliance: it is better for a single compliant option, which
has been carefully considered and judged to be proportionate,
to be put to Parliament.
Compliance or non-compliance
226. Views within the Committee on the fundamental
choice—to comply or not to comply—were split.
227. A minority of members of the Committee, including
the Chair, support non-compliance. They do so in full recognition
of the serious consequences of non-compliance, but consider that
the ECtHR has exceeded its mandate in seeking to dictate to a
democratically elected legislature the detailed arrangements regarding
prisoner voting. They consider that the Court's recent jurisprudence,
which suggests that automatic disenfranchisement is allowable,
but not if the threshold for that disenfranchisement corresponds
to the threshold for imprisonment, is internally incoherent, clearly
demonstrating the dangers of judicial law-making.
228. In light of the gravity of the decision before
Parliament, these members of the Committee believe that both compliant
and non-compliant options should be included in any Bill introduced
by the Government, so that Parliament can fully weigh up the arguments
on both sides. They therefore recommend that the Government's
Bill should include a) option 3 in the draft Bill, re-stating
the existing United Kingdom ban on convicted prisoners voting
in elections, and b) a compliant option, which would provide as
follows:
- 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 all convicted 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.
229. The majority of members of the Committee support
compliance with the judgment of the ECtHR in Hirst. They
acknowledge the need for continuing reform of the Court and its
relationship to national legislatures. But they consider that
the United Kingdom is under a binding international law obligation
to comply with the Hirst judgment, and that refusal to
comply with the judgment would not only be unprecedented in itself,
but would gravely undermine the principle of the rule of law and
the UK's international standing. While acknowledging the strength
of public feeling on the issue of prisoner voting and the symbolic
force of current ban, they believe that no case has been made
for the current ban in respect of penal policy, and that the effects
of the ban on individual prisoners are capricious and disproportionate.
230. These members of the Committee accordingly conclude
that Parliament should comply with the Court's judgment in Hirst
by enacting legislation that would confer voting rights on some
convicted prisoners.
Conclusions and recommendations
231. Parliament must be given the opportunity
to decide, on a fully informed basis, whether to comply with the
judgment of the European Court of Human Rights or not. We therefore
recommend that the Government should introduce a Bill containing
two options for consideration by Parliament, one representing
compliance with the Court's judgment, and the other non-compliance.
232. We recommend that the compliant option in
the Government's Bill, rather than following either option 1 or
option 2 in the draft Bill, should 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.
Amendment proposed to leave out paragraphs 224 to
232 and insert new paragraphs 224 to 234 (now paragraphs 229 to
239)—(Crispin Blunt).
Question proposed, that the Amendment be made.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to
leave out "12 months or less" and insert "less
than 4 years"—(Lord Peston).
The Committee divided.
Contents, 4 Not Contents,
6
| Lord Dholakia
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
Sir Alan Meale MP
Lord Peston
| Crispin Blunt MP
Steve Brine MP
Lorely Burt MP
Nick Gibb MP
Lord Norton of Louth
Derek Twigg MP
|
Question negatived.
Question put, That the proposed Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Contents, 7 Not Contents,
3
| Crispin Blunt MP
Lorely Burt MP
Lord Dholakia
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
Sir Alan Meale MP
Lord Norton of Louth
Lord Peston
| Steve Brine MP
Nick Gibb MP
Derek Twigg MP
|
Amendment agreed to.
Executive Summary read, as follows:
In November 2012 the Lord Chancellor published the
Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill, and announced the establishment
of a Joint Committee to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny.
At present the law in the United Kingdom is clear:
all convicted prisoners are prohibited from voting in parliamentary,
local or European parliamentary elections, for the duration of
their detention. The draft Bill contains three options: options
A and B would give the vote to all those serving sentences of
less than 4 years or 6 months or less respectively; option C would
re-state the existing complete prohibition on all convicted prisoners
voting.
The Government brought forward the draft Bill as
a result of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights
in the 2004 case of Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2). In
that case the Court found that the UK's complete prohibition on
convicted prisoners voting was incompatible with the European
Convention on Human Rights.
Underlying our inquiry is a far-reaching debate about
the United Kingdom's future relationship with the European Court
of Human Rights and the Convention system as a whole. This debate
falls outside the scope of this Report, though we have, in reaching
our conclusions, taken into account the implications of a refusal
to comply with the Court's judgment for the UK's relationship
with the Court and for the future of the entire Convention system.
In respect of prisoner voting itself, we have sought
to present the arguments in a balanced and dispassionate way.
In so doing we have reached the following conclusions on points
of basic principle:
- In a democracy the vote is a right, not a privilege:
it should not be removed without good reason.
- The vote is a presumptive, not an absolute right:
all democratic states restrict the right to vote in order to achieve
clearly defined, legitimate objectives.
- The vote is also a power: citizens are entrusted,
in voting, with an element of power over their fellow-citizens.
- There is a legitimate expectation that those
convicted of serious crimes should, as part of their punishment,
be stripped of the power embodied in the right to vote.
Parliament is sovereign: it is free to legislate
as it sees fit, and we expect that whatever Bill is ultimately
introduced, amendments either re-stating the current prohibition
on prisoner voting, or enfranchising some or all prisoners, will
be debated and voted on. Our Report seeks ensure that Members
of both Houses, in debating these issues, are fully informed of
the historical, legal and factual background to the debate, as
well as the major arguments for and against allowing some or all
prisoners to vote.
Views within the Committee—as in Parliament
as a whole—were divided, and in recognition of this we have
recommended that any Bill introduced by the Government should
include two options. One option should restate the existing prohibition;
the other should include provisions enfranchising prisoners serving
sentences of 12 months or less, as well as allowing all prisoners
to apply, up to 1 year before their scheduled release date, to
be registered to vote in the constituency into which they are
due to be released.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the Executive Summary
and insert new Executive Summary—(Crispin Blunt).
Amendment agreed to.
Appendices to the Report agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report
be the Report of the Committee to both Houses.
Ordered, That the Chair
make the Report to the House of Commons and that Lord Peston make
the Report to the House of Lords on Monday 16 December 2013.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported.
Ordered, That embargoed
copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the
provisions of Standing Order No. 134 of the House of Commons.
The Committee adjourned.
238 Q 210 Back
| 
