Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Grieve and David Nuttall

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says—that the Human Rights Act is a mechanism through which victims of crime may seek redress. He is right about that, but there is no reason to suppose that if it were to be replaced by a Bill of Rights, that right would necessarily be removed.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the Attorney-General agree that the British people want the European convention on human rights to be interpreted in the way the original draftsmen intended back in 1950, and not according to what some judges would like it to mean today?

[The Attorney-General]

I am afraid I have to disagree with my hon. Friend. If he were correct, the criminalisation of homosexuality would remain acceptable, because the convention would not have evolved. I realise he touches on a difficult issue. Some have argued that the interpretation of the convention goes further than it should, and that is a legitimate issue of public debate. As for the principle that the convention should simply be static and remain where it was in 1950, I think careful examination would soon reveal a great many problems that would cause anxiety in this House.

Voting by Prisoners

Debate between Dominic Grieve and David Nuttall

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. Indeed, in some countries, the removal of the right to vote effectively forms part of the sentencing exercise. However, that has not been part of our national tradition in this country. I will be interested to hear hon. Members’ reasoning in the debate. I assume that the underlying principle behind the ban—given that many people are convicted and not sent to prison—was that a person who was sent to prison had done something so antisocial towards the civil order that it was justified to remove their right to vote. Speaking personally, I have never thought that there was anything unreasonable about that approach, although I appreciate that some hold other views, including non-governmental organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust, which has argued powerfully in favour of giving prisoners the right to vote.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

In answer to the Court’s concerns, may I point out that criminals in this country choose of their own free will to commit serious crimes, and they know that, if they are found guilty and sent to prison, they will lose their right to vote?

[The Attorney-General]

That is a very good argument, and it might be helpful to me if I ever have to stand up in front of the European Court of Human Rights to explain the reasoning of the United Kingdom Parliament.

I have pointed out that matters were made more difficult following the judgment in Frodl v. Austria, in which it was held that the disfranchisement of a person sentenced to more than one year in prison was a violation of article 3, and in the Greens and M.T. case, although the Court clearly stated at that time that judicial discretion was not a requirement. From that point of view, it is clearly open to the United Kingdom Government to put in place a system that would not involve judicial discretion. I have some hesitation, in any event, about whether the judiciary would wish to have that discretion inflicted on them. As hon. Members might be aware, however, the Government have made it plain that, even on minimal sentences, the power to remove the right to vote—in cases involving electoral fraud, for example—ought to be retained by the judges in any event.

It is for the House to provide a response today. I hope that that response will be useful to the Government in representing the House’s views in what I anticipate will be a rather drawn-out dialogue between ourselves and the Court.