Eric in a pickle

Eric in a pickle



To: PICKLES, Eric
Subject: Website Enquiry

Enquiry:
I would like to know why you asked the following question?

Mr. Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) who the respondents were to the second round of consultation on voting rights for prisoners; [308289]

(2) how many respondents to the second round of consultation on voting rights for prisoners were convicted prisoners. [308290]

Mr. Wills: The second stage consultation on the voting rights of convicted prisoners closed on 29 September. A detailed analysis of the replies to the second stage consultation-including a breakdown of respondents-will be available upon publication of the Government's response. There have been over 100 responses to the consultation from a number of different groups including charities, local authorities, members of the public and prisoners, which we are currently considering carefully.

Dear Mr Hirst,

Thank you for your email to Eric Pickles MP, the Conservative Party Chairman. He has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.

The Conservative Party has a direct interest in electoral law. We do not support giving convicted prisoners the right to vote, as a term of imprisonment should involve a loss of civic rights - from freedom of movement to the right to vote.

I hope that this has helped to clarify the matter for you. Thank you for writing to us.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Bridgman

Dear Sarah Bridgman

Thank you for your email in response to my enquiry.

However, this view "We do not support giving convicted prisoners the right to vote, as a term of imprisonment should involve a loss of civic rights - from freedom of movement to the right to vote." is not in line with the ECtHR judgment in Hirst v UK(No2).

"69. In this case, the Court would begin by underlining that prisoners in general continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention save for the right to liberty, where lawfully imposed detention expressly falls within the scope of Article 5 of the Convention".

"59. As pointed out by the applicant, the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion, as may be illustrated, for example, by the parliamentary history of the United Kingdom and other countries where the franchise was gradually extended over the centuries from select individuals, elite groupings or sections of the population approved of by those in power. Universal suffrage has become the basic principle (Mathieu-Mohin, 51, citing X. v. Germany, no. 2728/66, Commission decision of 6 October 1967, Collection 25, pp. 38-41)".

"63. The present case highlights the status of the right to vote of convicted prisoners who are detained". The Court concluded that the UK was in violation of the Convention".

The Tory party appears to be in a conspiracy with Labour to support the breach of citizens human rights, rather than attacking Labours breaches of the law.

Will you please now confirm that the Tory party does not care about human rights and the rule of law?

Yours sincerely

John Hirst

Eric Pickles accuses Gordon Brown of misleading Parliament