With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on
sentencing and the Government’s response to the Hirst judgment.
For many years, it has been a feature of United Kingdom law that
when someone commits a crime that is sufficiently serious to
receive a prison sentence they are deemed to have broken their
contract with society to such an extent that they should not have
the right to vote until they are ready to be back in the
community.
This prohibition is currently set out in the Representation of
the People Act 1983 (as amended) and the principle behind this
has been reaffirmed by this House, most recently in 2011.
It is in that context that successive governments have considered
the implications of the Hirst judgment in 2005. Labour, Coalition
and Conservative governments have all taken the view that UK laws
are a matter for democratically-elected lawmakers in the UK and
have not enacted any change to legislation. This Conservative
Government continues to believe that convicted offenders who are
detained in prison should not vote.
And unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we do not believe all
prisoners should be enfranchised regardless of the length of
sentence or the gravity of the crime.
The United Kingdom has a proud constitutional tradition, and it
is right that we uphold our obligations: but the British public
expect us to do so in our own way, consistent with British values
of rights and responsibilities.
In December 2016, the Government gave a formal and public
commitment to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe, the body representing the national governments of its
members, that we would - in time for their meeting next month -
provide proposals to address the Hirst judgment.
Since then, the Government has considered this issue carefully.
We have decided to propose administrative changes to address the
points raised in the 2005 judgment, while maintaining the bar on
convicted prisoners in custody from voting.
First, we will make it clear to criminals when they are sentenced
that while they are in prison this means they will lose the right
to vote. This directly addresses a specific concern of the Hirst
judgment that there was not sufficient clarity in confirming to
offenders that they cannot vote in prison.
Second, we will amend guidance to address an anomaly in the
current system, where offenders who are released back in the
community on licence using an electronic tag under the Home
Detention Curfew scheme can vote, but those who are in the
community on Temporary Licence, cannot.
Release on Temporary Licence is a tool typically used to allow
offenders to commute to employment in the community and so
prepare themselves for their return to society. Reinstating the
civic right of voting at this point is consistent with this
approach.
It is absolutely not an automatic entitlement and is subject to
rigorous risk assessment. These measures will see no changes to
the criteria for temporary release, and no offenders will be
granted release in order vote.
Our estimate is that these change to temporary licence will
affect up to one hundred offenders at any one time and none of
them will be able to vote from prison.
This measure will require no changes to the Representation of the
People Act 1983, but instead would entail a change to Prison
Service guidance.
Membership of the Council of Europe is a reserved matter under
the devolution settlements but we will of course work with the
three devolved administrations on this issue, in particular to
reflect the differences in law and practice in Scotland and
Northern Ireland, and we have informed them of our plans to
resolve this for the whole of the UK.
We believe these changes address the points raised in the 2005
judgment in a way that respects the clear direction of successive
Parliaments and the strong views of the British public on
prisoner voting. As such I commend this statement to the House.
