Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Elystan-Morgan (Crossbench). It was answered on Monday, 20 April 2009.

Prisoners: Voting

Question: My Lords, does the Minister not agree, however, that it is simply not a matter of "may" or "might" but of "must", and that for some years we have clearly been in breach of a specific legal obligation? Does he not agree also that it is entirely wholesome that these people, who have been placed beyond the walls of society for their transgressions—and perfectly properly so—should be reminded that they are human beings and citizens with fundamental rights? Indeed, in some cases that situation may remind them of the reciprocity between obligations and rights in relation to the community.

Answer: My Lords, I have to remind the House that when the European Court of Human Rights ruled on the appeal in October 2005, about three and-a-half years ago, it did not specify which prisoners should be given the vote. Indeed, the Court held that the blanket ban was unlawful, but expressly recognised that each member state had some discretion as to who should be given the vote. The Court expressly stated that it was not for it to impose on the UK full voting rights for all prisoners, but it was for the UK, through its democratically elected Parliament, to implement the judgment, taking into account its constitutional traditions. That is why in the second consultation paper, produced earlier this month, we set out a number of different options. Indeed, we invite noble Lord with views on this to answer the consultation.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 709 c1247-8
Session: 2008-09
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Subjects: British nationality EU countries Elections European Parliament EU nationals Prisoners Voting rights
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk