The European court of human rights ordered the UK to allow prisoners to vote five years ago
Patrick Wintour, political editor, Guardian, Tuesday 8 February 2011 20.41 GMT
British prisoners have been disenfranchised since 1870. Photograph: Sean SmithThe government is resigned to being told by parliament not to give prisoners the right to vote nor to pay compensation to British prisoners denied that right.
The European court of human rights ordered the UK to allow prisoners to vote five years ago. The expected vote by MPs will drive a wedge between parliament and the court, and possibly between parliament and No 10.
Downing Street said the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, will not put the case for compliance with the European court on behalf of the government, but will instead set out the legal background to the case. "We are simply listening to what parliament has to say," a spokesman said.
Grieve will come under pressure to explain to impatient Tory MPs how the government will respond to a no vote by parliament. Previously the government had said it will allow all prisoners serving under four years to vote, and implement the change this year. The Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper has said the government has no option but to comply.
Backbench Tory MPs such as Dominic Raab argue the government can refuse to pay compensation without fear.
Raab said: "There are many occasions in which the European court's ruling had been ignored by signatories to the convention. It has no implications for our membership of the Council of Europe."
The shadow cabinet has said its members will abstain and other MPs will have a free vote. The decision came despite an angry intervention by former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott at a meeting of Labour MPs on Monday, when he demanded to know why Labour was defying the court. He said: "We were the advocates of human rights and bringing the European convention into British law, so what are we doing now?"
His ire was aimed at former justice secretary Jack Straw, who opposes the move.
The government has already told its ministers to abstain, and given a free vote to backbenchers.
No 10 said the government would not seek to avoid a vote on Thursday, but refused to give a commitment to how it will respond. It is expected that some Labour MPs including Kate Green will make the case for compensation with the court.
Some ministers argue that a strong vote against the court will simply strengthen the government's negotiating hand, and not lead to a confrontation.
The vote is taking place under a new procedure that gives backbenchers a role in deciding the business of parliament.
Natascha Engel, the chair of the elected backbench committee responsible for tabling the debate, said: "We as a committee are not able to table motions that change laws, but instead that ask the government to do something."
The vote, following ones on contaminated blood and the future of IPSA – the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority – will be a test of the extent to which the executive is willing to follow motions passed by parliament.
Comment: MPs have not got the authority to deny prisoners the right to vote. The sub-heading refers to the Court ordering the UK. The Court ruled that the existing law breached human rights, but it is the Committee of Ministers which has the power to order the UK to remedy the breach. Note the difference between the headline MPs and the sub-header UK? MPs are in the Commons and UK encompasses the 3 arms of the State (Executive, Parliament and Judiciary).
"The government is resigned to being told by parliament not to give prisoners the right to vote nor to pay compensation to British prisoners denied that right".
The Commons is not Parliament, because Parliament is the legislature which incluses both the Houses, Commons and Lords. The Commons has no authority to tell the government not to give prisoners the right to vote (the Court has already given convicted prisoners this right, the UK must implement it), nor to tell the government not to pay compensation to British prisoners denied that right.
"The expected vote by MPs will drive a wedge between parliament and the court, and possibly between parliament and No 10".
It will not drive a wedge between Parliament and the Court, because they are already separate institutions. And, it will not drive a wedge between Parliament and Number 10, because the vote is only in the Commons and not both Houses of Parliament. If anything, it will only show a split in the Coalition.
"Downing Street said the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, will not put the case for compliance with the European court on behalf of the government, but will instead set out the legal background to the case. "We are simply listening to what parliament has to say," a spokesman said".
The role of the AG is the government's legal adviser. Is Dominic Grieve abdicating his responsibility? If so, will he then resign? The legal background to the case is already covered in Hirst v UK (No2). As for the Downing Street spokesman, we will only be listening to what MPs in the Commons have to say and not what Parliament has to say. Bring back Andy Coulson all is forgiven!
"Grieve will come under pressure to explain to impatient Tory MPs how the government will respond to a no vote by parliament". It's not a no vote by Parliament, but it could be a no vote by the Commons.
"The Cabinet Office minister Mark Harper has said the government has no option but to comply".
Mark Harper is clearly incompetent is he is not aware that it is the UK and not just the government which has no option but to comply.
"Backbench Tory MPs such as Dominic Raab argue the government can refuse to pay compensation without fear".
These backbench Tory MPs (including Dominic Raab) are talking out of their arses! Be afraid, be very afraid!
"Raab said: "There are many occasions in which the European court's ruling had been ignored by signatories to the convention. It has no implications for our membership of the Council of Europe."".
As to the first part that is true. Given that Dominic Raab is a barrister, with experience in international law, he should know better than to issue a statement such as the second part. If he had given that advice to me as a client and I was daft enough to act upon it and suffered as a consequence, then I would have sued him for negligence!
Prescott, like the Yanks coming late into the Second World War, should have raised his point when in government and attacked Jack Straw when Justice Secretary for not taking responsibility for doing something about it. Take it from me, this is going to get a lot messier before it is all gets cleaned up.
"The government has already told its ministers to abstain, and given a free vote to backbenchers".
What is the point of abstaining? I think this is another bad judgement call by David Cameron. By abstaining I would contend that this is an act of dishonour by the Executive towards the Council of Europe, Comittee of Ministers, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Court and Convention.
Interesting that No 10 "refused to give a commitment to how it will respond". Chuckle, chuckle. How long before some mouthy Tory backbenchers will be flapping around like headless chickens?
"Some ministers argue that a strong vote against the court will simply strengthen the government's negotiating hand, and not lead to a confrontation".
Er? It's not a vote against the Court, the Commons does not have the power to do a vote against the jurisdiction of the Court. The Council of Europe sees this for what it is, a sideshow. As far as the Convention goes, the Court decision is final. The Committee of Ministers has already stated that only fully complying with the Court decision wil suffice. Moreover, that there will be no compromise. Therefore, no negotiation. This leaves the UK with no negotiating hand. The CofE will see this as a challenge to their authority, it is a confrontation, and the CofE will deal with it appropriately. I strongly suspect that the UK will not like this surprise.
"The vote...will be a test of the extent to which the executive is willing to follow motions passed by parliament".
As much as it amuses me at the thought of the Executive willing to follow motions passed by Parliament, all the way through the sewers and out into the sea. However, it is not passed by Parliament but a motion decided in the Commons which is not binding on the government. It is certainly not binding on the Court, but on the other hand the Court decision is binding on the UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment