Deeds not words: Let's have some action on prisoners voting rights

Deeds not words: Let's have some action on prisoners voting rights

Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what plans he has to extend voting rights to sentenced prisoners in England and Wales. [218573]

Bridget Prentice: Following the European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in the case of Hirst v. UK requires the Government to reconsider their policy of a blanket ban on the voting rights of convicted prisoners. That requirement is a consequence of a judgment in the European Court of Human Rights and is something that would need to be implemented in the UK even if the Human Rights Act was not in place.

In response, we undertook a first stage consultation which concluded in March 2007. However, since that point the context for the debate about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and in particular the exercise of the franchise, in the United Kingdom has changed significantly following the launch of the Governance of Britain Green Paper and publication of the Goldsmith Review.

I can confirm that the Government remain committed to carrying out a second, more detailed public consultation on how voting rights might be granted to serving prisoners, and how far those rights should be extended. But we consider it essential that any changes to the law to extend the franchise to those held in custody are considered in the context of the wider development of policy on the franchise and the rights that attach to British citizenship.

During April 2008 we provided the Committee of Ministers with a detailed note about implementing the Hirst judgment and we have undertaken to submit further information in due course on the form and timing of a further consultation in the light of the wider debate which is now taking place. Following consideration of the outcome of consultation, legislation to implement the Government’s final approach will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Commentary: It's a straight forward question and merited a straight forward answer. However, that would be "He has no plans". The reason being because the government has been stalling on this issue since 2005. Bridget Prentice almost repeats herself by twice referring to the ECtHR judgment and what it requires. Then curiously throws in the bit about the HRA (1998) when it had not been raised. Get the defence in quick before the Human Rights Act bashers call for it to be scrapped. What Bridget Prentice does not say, is that the ECtHR did not decide that there should be a public consultation. The Court decided that Parliament had not debated the issue of prisoners voting rights before imposing a blanket ban. And, Parliament has still not debated the issue. The government used the so-called consultation process to stall for more time. In my view, the process is legally flawed and susceptible to judicial review. Prisoners are members of the public, and it is a decision which most affects them and yet they were not consulted during the process. I am baffled by this wider British citizenship nonsense, unless the government intends to bury prisoners votes in the middle of it to try and confuse the public and the media.