Electoral Administration Bill

I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing up this important and contentious issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, rightly indicated where the law stands under the 1983 Act—that convicted prisoners are barred from voting while serving their sentences in prison. She also indicated the position of John Hirst, who challenged the ban in April 2001, by way of judicial review. When he was unsuccessful in the UK courts, Mr Hirst sought redress in the European Court of Human Rights, and the court found in its initial judgment that there had been a breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1, which provides for states to undertake to hold elections under conditions that ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people. Noble Lords will know, too, that the Government decided to challenge that judgment and requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which heard the case afresh in April 2005 and delivered its judgment in October, finding in favour of the applicant and that there had been a breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1. The court found that the general principle of a blanket ban on the rights of all convicted and detained prisoners is not compatible with the convention. The court did not suggest precisely what measures might be considered compatible. The judgment implied that any decision must be fully debated and emerge from a discussion which considers modern-day penal policy and current human rights standards. The court has not said, however, that all convicted prisoners should have the right to vote. We recognise that the judgment raises a number of difficult and complex issues that need to be carefully considered—and, in particular, what specific measures might be needed to implement it, in terms of possible legislation and practice. The way forward is for the Government to publish a consultation paper, as we shall be doing in due course, and to consult. So it would be premature for me to enter into the detailed discussion of the precise nature of our response to the judgment, because we want to consult first before we do so—and this debate forms a part of that, so I am very grateful to noble Lords for expressing their views on the matter. When we consult, we shall seek the views of Members of this place and another place. For that reason, I cannot say any more than that at this stage. We shall consult and shall do so to reach a conclusion, which we shall bring back to this House and another place to implement. I add that, as the Minister for Human Rights, I shall play a part in that.