Government fails to act on European court ruling that Britain's ban was a breach of human rights
By Marcel Berlins
It's not a vote winner, and there is no public clamour for it. One can understand that a law allowing prisoners to vote in elections wouldn't be very high on any government's list of priorities. But for nearly six years the Labour administration has been under a legal duty to ensure that we have such a law – and has done nothing about it. This deliberate indolence looks likely to continue until the next election.
In March 2004, the European court of human rights (ECHR) ruled that Britain's blanket ban on giving prisoners the right to vote was a breach of the European convention on human rights.
What was then supposed to happen is clear. The British government was obliged to implement the court's ruling. That's what the rule says. Even allowing for the government's appeal against the decision (which it lost), and for time to think about and draft the new law – not a complicated matter – something should and could have been done by the end of 2006.
This week the Council of Europe's committee of ministers meets to discuss the cases of those countries that have failed to give effect to the ECHR's rulings. This will not be the first time that Britain's foot-dragging on prisoners' votes has come up before the committee.
Last June, following a complaint by the Prison Reform Trust, the committee "expressed concern about the significant delay … and recognised the pressing need to take concrete steps to implement the judgment, particularly in light of upcoming UK elections …"
The government's response was to carry out a short public consultation, which ended in September, since when nothing has been heard officially.
There has been the predictable but misguided outcry from those who cannot bear the thought of the vote being given to mass murderers and the perpetrators of other horrific crimes.
But the ruling of the Strasbourg court merely insisted that there must not be a total ban (on voting) on all prisoners. It would be perfectly acceptable – and many other countries have done it – to impose a cut-off point that excludes the most serious offenders. Indeed, the government's consultation document included several options along those lines.
I don't fully understand the government's reluctance. It cannot be for logistical reasons. It would not be difficult to make the arrangements for eligible prisoners to vote. Even at this late stage it would be easy to include the topic in the proposed constitutional reform and governance bill referred to in the Queen's speech. And votes for prisoners, if not an electoral winner, wouldn't be a loser either. There are many more important issues to sway the electorate.
The government, or at least Jack Straw, still seems to be wedded to the Victorian argument that voting is a privilege and an honour, to be refused to the undeserving. Today's reality is that it is a legal right. Exercising it can only help a prisoner's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. That is to the benefit of all of us. There is still time for the government to do the decent thing.
Meanwhile...
Public vote on youth punishments
People are being given the chance to vote for how young offenders in the north west of England are punished.
A government website has been set up allowing users to suggest punishments for criminals aged between 10 and 17.
Voters can choose from tasks including cleaning graffiti, repairing vandalism, working in libraries and charity work.
1 comment:
This government have never done the decent thing!
Post a Comment