Legal Advice: Prorogation

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

May I then encourage the hon. Lady to ensure that we vote for the election motion that will come before the House shortly? That way she can try to ensure that what she hopes for will take place. However, I do not agree. The Supreme Court found no impropriety on the part of the Government, the Prime Minister or anybody else.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Attorney General believe that the judgment has left 17.5 million people feeling more disfranchised than ever? How should the Government and the House repair that damage?

[The Attorney General]

I completely agree. This House’s actions are bringing it into discredit. It is abandoning almost all reasonable precedent. The time has come for a general election, and to resist it is immoral, unparliamentary and undemocratic, but that is the decision that the Opposition have taken. Let us wait and see what the electorate make of it, but I hope they will understand that the Government are trying to fulfil the mandate of those 17.4 million people. We will never cease until we succeed.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I of course want to leave the European Union, but the problem with the withdrawal agreement is that it does not, I assert, represent Brexit, in terms of repealing the 1972 Act. As I was saying, that is an Act of Parliament not only of Great Britain but of Northern Ireland. The constitutional status of Northern Ireland is therefore at stake, with respect to the question of the Northern Ireland backstop. There is no doubt about that.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it not the case that the withdrawal agreement would cause irreversible and lasting damage to Northern Ireland and our precious Union?

[Sir William Cash]

I heard the Prime Minister repeatedly mention our precious Union. The Northern Ireland backstop drives a coach and horses through the precious Union––that is the problem. As I understand it, that is precisely why the Democratic Unionist party will vote against the withdrawal agreement today—because it puts the Union at risk.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I will suggest the next office you could perhaps promote me to, Mr Speaker.

I am more than conscious that last time I had a prolonged outing in this House the verdict did not go well. [Laughter.] On this occasion, I intend, if I may, to adopt an approach that I hope will be more to the House’s taste. I want to listen to the House’s views, and I shall be as accommodating as possible to the interventions of Members of this House, knowing as I do that many of them have very strong views upon this subject.

I have listened with care to the speeches of Members of this House during the course of last week’s proceedings, and I have been struck by the heartfelt and eloquent expressions of principled opinion that hon. Members have made. I was particularly struck, though I do not think he is in his place this morning, by the speech late last night—I commend you, Mr Speaker, and those who remained here until after 1 o’clock in the morning to complete yesterday’s proceedings—by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). He waited, I think, until midnight or shortly thereafter to begin his speech, and made the most passionate appeal to Members of this House to understand the value of compromise. He told the House that the membership of this place confers on us not only the great privilege of participation in the Government but the responsibilities that go with it.

In the past, when this country has faced these kinds of grave obstacles and impediments to finding a way forward, Members of this place have found the resource within themselves to achieve a compromise and to subordinate their ideal preference—the solution that they would like to see—to that which commands a degree of consensus. It is precisely for that reason that I support the withdrawal agreement—not because I like every element of it but for wholly pragmatic reasons: it is the necessary means to secure our orderly departure and unlock our future outside the European Union.

Since 23 June 2016, we have been on a road that has led us ineluctably to this point. One after another, this House has taken the steps, often by overwhelming majorities, necessary to bring us to the brink of departure, and there are now but two steps to take. The first is this withdrawal agreement. It is the first of the two keys that will unlock our future outside the European Union. It is sometimes said in various circles, I understand, Mr Speaker, that if you are moving from one pressurised atmosphere or environment to another, it is necessary to have an airlock. This withdrawal agreement is the first key that will unlock the airlock and take us into the next stage, where the second key will be the permanent relationship treaty.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the point that the Attorney General has made with regard to the value of compromise. Anyone involved in any significant negotiation knows that compromise, and the timing of it, is absolutely essential. Is he aware of the most recent comments by the retired former Irish ambassador to the EU, a man who worked on behalf of the Republic of Ireland on the Belfast agreement, who said in The Sunday Business Post: “We”—the Irish Government—“were wrong to insist on the backstop—and softening our stance is the only way to prevent ‘no deal’”? Is the Attorney General pushing for that outcome?

[The Attorney General]

Well, of course I would have been infinitely happier if the European Union had not laid down as one of its cardinal negotiating points and principles that there should be a backstop, but it has done that. On the basis of its own guidance to its own negotiating principles, it would have been a demand that it always sought, and we are faced with the position as it now is.

If we take this step of entering this withdrawal agreement, we will then enter a stage where we are to negotiate the second key to unlock our future outside the European Union. What I am commending to the House is that we take this key and we unlock the door to that first chamber—that airlock where we can then settle the permanent relationship that is set out in the political declaration.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

I cannot. I cannot, without breaching the convention, disclose whether or not I was asked to advise on any particular point. But what I can say is that the question of termination clauses was most certainly raised in the negotiations, but the European Union declined to entertain those termination clauses. It did so because the backstop is envisaged as an absolute guarantee that in all circumstances, including that of no deal, there would be no hard border at the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border. Therefore, to have a termination clause would be a contradiction in terms. It would not be a guarantee if you can walk away from it. That is the decision the House must face—in the light of that, it must decide whether this is an arrangement into which it should, given the alternatives, enter.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I thank the Attorney General for his absolute candour in how he has presented this to the House this evening, but the stark reality of what he has set out, to any person living in Northern Ireland, is that as a result of Northern Ireland ending up in this backstop, which would be utterly shameful, Northern Ireland would become an annexe of the United Kingdom when it comes to trading relations during the backstop period. I quote to him from the document that he has placed in the Table Office today:

“These provisions apply to measures that affect trade between Great Britain and the EU, but not trade between Northern Ireland and the EU.”

In fact, we would have to comply with another regime. How could any Unionist sign up to that?

[The Attorney General]

The European Union’s original proposal, as the hon. Gentleman will know, was that Northern Ireland should reside in an entirely separate customs territory. The Government took the view that that was wholly and completely unacceptable. Why? Because there is virtually no sovereign state in the world that has separate customs and fiscal tariffs within its own sovereign territory. But there are many nations throughout the world in which different provinces and parts have regulatory divergence. The regulatory divergence in this case can be minimised to an almost, if not wholly, invisible extent. Furthermore, we do not wish, nor expect, to be in this arrangement. Under article 132 we can extend the implementation period, and if we are close to doing a deal, or even reasonably close, no doubt that is a choice that we will have to consider.

I say to hon. Members that I understand entirely their feelings of concern, even distaste, but this is a question affecting the whole United Kingdom and its interests. So vital is the fact that we should have an orderly exit from the European Union that, as people who hold the United Kingdom’s Union at their heart, I would urge them to consider supporting this agreement, for it is our means out of the European Union.

UK and Gibraltar Prosecuting Authorities

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Robert Buckland)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Crausby, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) for securing this debate at a timely moment, when the Joint Ministerial Council is meeting here in London and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and those of other British overseas territories are with us. It is timely indeed, because it gives all Members of this House and all parties in this House an opportunity to reaffirm our strong support and commitment to Gibraltar and its work, not just in co-operation with the United Kingdom but with other territories and countries, in helping to fight international crime.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Solicitor-General take it upon himself at the end of the debate to let the Chief Minister know of the unwavering support throughout this House and that it stands shoulder to shoulder with the people of Gibraltar?

[The Solicitor-General]

I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman’s exhortation. I hope to see the Chief Minister at the Foreign Office later today and I will convey the message of this House loud and clear that we support the work of our friends in Gibraltar and the prosecutorial authorities and indeed the Attorney General, Ricky Rhoda.

I can contribute to this debate by outlining the work of the Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office, both of which the Attorney-General and I superintend in our role as Law Officers. Indeed, I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the working relationship between the UK and Gibraltarian prosecuting authorities is strong and constructive.

As my hon. Friend recognises, the Government have set out to reinvigorate our relationship with the overseas territories, to increase the UK’s engagement with their Governments at all levels and to support them when required. I have just returned from a conference of Attorneys General of 10 of the UK’s overseas territories, including Gibraltar, with representatives from the United States and Canadian Departments of Justice. We met in Miami and discussed a range of topics relating to the rule of law and administration of justice in the overseas territories and sought to enhance our mutual co-operation on a range of matters. After three and a half days of discussion, my firm view is that the Attorneys General of each of our territories play a key role in helping to drive forward legal reform and to meet our wider ambitions.

Ensuring good governance and respect for the rule of law is a fundamental and vital platform for delivering security and prosperity for all our citizens. During the conference we discussed important topics including mutual legal assistance, extradition procedures, tackling bribery, fraud and corruption, improving legislative drafting processes, child safeguarding—a growing and important issue in many territories—and constitutional matters. A series of actions on those subjects was agreed, and I look forward to continuing our close liaison with the Attorney General of Gibraltar and the other overseas territories as we work to deliver them.

I turn to the work of the prosecuting authorities, starting with the Crown Prosecution Service. It is important to note that co-operation between the UK and Gibraltar is not confined to mutual legal assistance through the formal letter of request process. It also takes place, as my hon. Friend suggested, on a police-to-police basis. The appropriate avenue will depend on the nature of the request and the purpose for which the information or evidence is sought. Both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office work regularly with other judicial authorities using the established MLA channels. That is how countries request and provide assistance in obtaining evidence that is located in one country for use in criminal investigations and prosecutions in another. It is also used to obtain assistance in the tracing, restraint and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, which is particularly germane to the issues that have been raised today.

Letters of request from Gibraltar to the UK typically come via the United Kingdom central authority, which is based in the Home Office. The CPS will be involved in requests to restrain or confiscate assets here in the UK. The CPS and the SFO have worked with the Gibraltarian authorities in the past few years, and that has been of real benefit to both jurisdictions.

John Downey

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend makes perhaps an important point. It is right to say that the letters were sent on the basis of decisions taken by both the Public Prosecution Service and the PSNI, in the context of Northern Ireland, and if domestic matters elsewhere in the UK were concerned, by their prosecutorial authorities. To that extent, it was an administrative system independently conducted of Ministers; I want to make that quite clear. However, it is also right that, at the end of the process, it was ministerial letters, or letters from officials, that constituted the giving of the information.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

This is a sad and sorry affair, which unfortunately is written in the blood of our brave servicemen on the streets of this wonderful city. We should never lose sight of that. However, does the Attorney-General recognise that the case law now established by this case and its outworking has done grievous harm to the rule of law and how it is considered across the whole of the United Kingdom, and will continue to do so unless he takes specific steps to rescind all the letters to all the individuals, and does his best to find fresh factors or new evidence to prosecute—once again—Mr John Downey?

[The Attorney-General]

So far as rescinding of the letters is concerned, that is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] No, it is not a matter for me, acting in my capacity; I accept that it could be a matter for Government, but it is not a matter on which I can give such an assurance to the hon. Gentleman.

On the question of case law, let me make the position quite clear. There is very well-established case law about abuse of process, and cases being stopped on the basis of an abuse of process, particularly in relation to assurances given that an individual might not be prosecuted for something, has not just suddenly emerged. It is perfectly well established in our law and indeed is part of our rule of law, for the very good reason that assurances given by public administrations may be binding upon them if they lead somebody to do something to their detriment.

In this case, as I have made clear, we took the view that there were arguments that could properly be put forward to the court that, although there was an error, it did not amount to an abuse of process and was not justified. The court has taken a different view, but I do not think that one can draw general conclusions about other cases from this case, which falls on its own individual facts.

Assisted Suicide

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), when she rightly said that the House is at its best today. The view of the House in the public eye over the past 24 hours is one thing, but today the House has risen to its very best when debating an issue—a solemn issue and one that touches on the hearts of everyone.

We have to start by declaring boldly and clearly that this House is not God. The House does not have the right to determine and should not take upon itself the right to determine what God determines—when life begins and ends. The House would be foolish to take that role, that desire and that power upon itself. This debate sets on its course the notion that we, this Parliament, can put in place a law that will determine when people in this nation should lose their lives. Think of it! Think of how foolish the House is, in the great scheme of things, when it puts itself in that God-like position! It is not God.

The law “works well in practice”. Those are not my words but the words of the DPP, who has spelt out clearly that the law is compassionate when it has to be compassionate. The guidelines from the DPP demonstrate that the law is independent, as it has to be, and flexible when it has to be flexible. We should recognise that that is the norm and accept that the guidelines do everything they need to do without the House taking it upon itself to unbolt the door and open the floodgates to euthanasia. That, essentially, is what we are trying to do, or at least what some in the House are trying to do.

Let us consider what happened across the sea after Holland decided to change its law and encourage euthanasia. We now have reports that it has specialised roving medical teams that take upon themselves the right to go and help patients end their lives. Since they have done this, they have assisted in more than 3,100 deaths a year. The number is more than 10,000 at present. We are opening a floodgate tonight, and we should draw back from turning the key and opening that gate by supporting something that will allow for this law to be introduced. That is exactly where it would take us.

We are told by some Members that change is necessary because it will put the patient in control. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) put her finger on it: we are not actually in control of these circumstances. Indeed, the practice of medicine is well called a practice because it is exactly that—a practice, not an art. I want to quote from a letter from Patrick Pullicino, professor of clinical neurosciences at the university of Kent:

“The crux of its problem”—

euthanasia—

“is that it is not possible, even for an experienced specialist, to diagnose with any accuracy when someone’s illness is imminently going to be fatal.”

We should recognise that we cannot give the patient what they want and put them in control because we do not know—we, this House, this people are not in control of the circumstances. We should sharpen up and wake up to our own humanity. Many people are right in what they have said about their own personal circumstances. I had the honour of nursing my father-in-law seven months ago, as I watched life ebb from him. I count it an honour to have been there with him and to have watched him die with dignity, but not to have encouraged it. The House should recognise that we are not God and we do not have the right to do this.

Phone Hacking

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me start by congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has performed a great public service in the clear, precise and consistent way that he has pursued this issue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). They have done us all a great favour, including this House.

The Attorney-General was right to tell the House that there are issues on which Ministers will say little in the short term. All the allegations need to be fully investigated and prosecutions should follow if the evidence substantiates them. We must do nothing in this House that would impede police investigations or the consequences being pursued. However, this issue goes far wider than that, as I am sure the Attorney-General would accept. It goes much wider than the faults or criminal activities of individuals, which is why a judicial or public inquiry needs to be established now. We need that assurance.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s giving way, especially as I have been subject to an investigation by the police in connection with this matter. I wonder whether he could outline for us who he thinks would be of sufficient calibre to carry out such an investigation. Would they be an international figure or someone from the United Kingdom?

[Alun Michael]

I do not have time to go into that adequately. What I would say is that we need a public inquiry with the capacity to get to the bottom of various issues. Therefore, it needs to be set up carefully and have appropriate powers, and not be the type of bureaucratic public inquiry that has sometimes got in the way of the truth emerging.

We have heard one of the investigators complaining about the relentless pressure of demands from the News of the World on investigators and journalists. I did not detect a great deal of sympathy in the House—I think I heard a bit of a groan, indicating a lack of sympathy—but pressure comes in two forms. One is the pressure to deliver—“You’re only as good as your next headline”—and the other is the general pressure of what is acceptable and expected in any profession, or the environment in which people do their work. It is important that both be addressed. At the heart of the matter are three issues. The first is the standard of journalism; and the second is the standard of governance in the press and the media. This could—indeed, should—be a watershed moment. In general, journalists want to be open and transparent and to do an honest job, but that is not easy all the time. I saw something of the power of the press pack as a young journalist in south Wales.

The Press Complaints Commission is well meaning but, frankly, it is a joke. The public and journalists deserve better. Its lack of influence and inability to change the environment or set standards lets down those who have earned a high reputation for themselves and for our better newspapers and media outlets. The Press Complaints Commission clearly has neither the will nor the capacity to change things, but we need to take care: statutory regulation of the press and media could endanger press independence, which would be a massive mistake. We need an independent body, but one that is robust and effective and has the powers to investigate and enforce. It would be a major step forward if such a body emerged from these events, as I hope will happen.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) told us that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner had referred the issue of possible payments to police officers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but the IPCC’s investigation needs to go a little wider. The Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), pointed out that the information now coming into the public domain was in the possession of the police in 2006. I hope that the commissioner will refer that to the IPCC too. The Metropolitan police had also reported to Ministers. My right hon. Friends the Members for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) had information on which they had to take their decisions, and so has the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Those issues relate to the conduct of the police and the activities of police officers and need to be looked at objectively. The IPCC should be asked to do that.

What the IPCC does should feed into the wider public inquiry; I do not think that the two are alternatives. The IPCC has the resources and the investigative capacities, and it has earned a reputation for being tough. It is therefore important that it should be able to ask the questions, “Did the police mislead Ministers and Parliament?”, “Did police receive money?”—that question has been referred to it already—and, “Did relationships distort investigations?” It is important that those questions should be forensically investigated as part of preparing the ground for the wider, transparent investigation that we need, as the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said. I do not think that these are alternatives, but we need the forensic capacity of the IPPC to look into some of these issues.

The third issue is that we need clarity about the law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, rightly said that the Committee had identified confusion about what the law says. That confusion should not exist. I refer specifically to the fact that John Yates told us that there were only a small number of victims, based on what he said was legal advice that the police would have to prove that messages had been intercepted and also listened to before being heard by the recipient. However, Kier Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, told us that that was not the advice given to detectives. Advice from prosecutors was at best provisional and did not limit the scope or extent of the criminal investigation—

Voting by Prisoners

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), although I was a bit worried by his suggestion that legal aid should be taken away from people, so that only the rich—the Max Mosleys—have the right to go to Strasbourg.

I am nervous of getting between my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Foreign Secretary, and the former Deputy Prime Minister, whom we heard on the “Today” programme this morning. When these two Labour buffaloes lock horns, smaller beasts in the jungle are advised to stay away. However, I want to make the case to the House that we should not completely throw away the good and honourable tradition of British liberalism. I know that this will make me unpopular with the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Daily Telegraph, which have constantly supported my political views over so many years, but surely we can still find a tiny space for classic, do-gooding, bleeding-heart British liberalism in contemporary politics. It is sad that there is no one left on the left to say that the right is not right, as we are told to bow to this atavistic tabloid hate against prisoners.

What are the facts? Different democracies in Europe take different approaches. In January, I was with Conservative colleagues at a meeting with Swiss parliamentarians. In non-EU Switzerland, all prisoners have had the right to vote for 40 years. That is also the case in Conservative-governed Sweden, Denmark and other EU countries. Britain stands with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and—let us not forget—Russia in banning the right for prisoners to vote. Since WikiLeaks has told us that the mafia runs politics in Russia, it has been clear that criminals there get elected rather than end up in prison.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Is it not the case that in the European Community, six other member states have an outright ban on prisoners voting, and 13 impose varying limits on the right to vote?

[Mr MacShane]

The hon. Gentleman takes me on to my next point. In other EU countries, prisoners can vote according to the sentence. In France, a judge adds a loss of civic rights to sentences for serious crimes, which is a compromise that satisfies the European Court of Human Rights and could easily be introduced here. However, sadly we are turning out backs today on more than a century and a half of prison reform. Retribution seems to be the order of the day for those who commit crimes. My view is that although someone may enter prison as a criminal, we should hope that they leave prison as a future citizen. Allowing people to take part in, think and read about, and ultimately—for non-serious cases—vote in elections would help the osmosis of turning criminals into future citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney-General]

It is certainly true that our international legal obligations may alter by virtue of what Parliament has enacted, but the current position is that we have an international obligation that, if I understood correctly from what they said, is not one from which, in its principles, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden or the right hon. Member for Blackburn would wish to resile. We are bound by it as Ministers of the Crown. However, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will come to that in a moment.

I repeat the point that the Grand Chamber in the Hirst case commented on the lack of any substantive debate in Parliament. It must be the case, therefore, that the existence of a substantive debate—indeed, we may have to have more than one substantive debate on this issue—will be helpful to the process of finding a way through the problem that is exercising many Members of this House. However, although Members are fully entitled to express their disagreement with the judgment of the European Court—indeed, I have done so myself: I said that I consider the judgment in the Hirst case to be an unsatisfactory one, for precisely the reasons, which I will not repeat, that the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend articulated—the fact that we may be in disagreement does not in itself solve the problem.

In order for the views of this House to be helpful, we need to demonstrate that we are engaging with the concerns of the Court and that we are not just expressing our frustrations—although I have to say that on occasion I have felt very frustrated on this issue in the last few years, and actually rather angry. Through a dialogue about what the House considers to be proper and reasonable in respect of prisoner voting, we have to see whether we can bring our weight to bear as a legislature in the development of the jurisprudence of the Court. That will give us the best possible chance of winning the challenges that may arise thereafter. As we know, given the litigiousness of those who think that there is a gravy train on which they might be able to climb, we can guarantee that, whatever we do, there will be legal challenge to it that will go back to the European Court of Human Rights for determination.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the Minister’s helpful guidance. Will he address the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) when he quoted Lord Hoffmann, the former Law Lord, saying in a lecture that it cannot be right for a European supranational court

“to intervene in matters on which Member States of the Council of Europe have not surrendered their sovereign powers”?

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us some guidance on that point?

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a great deal of commentary, including in some learned lectures by judges, such as Lady Justice Arden, Lord Hoffmann and others, who have expressed growing concern about the way in which the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is being developed and about the Court’s tendency towards micro-management. That is the nature of the challenge. That said, for the reasons I gave a moment ago, the judgments of the Court constitute an international obligation, so far as we subscribe to the convention and to membership of the Council of Europe. That is the dilemma the Government face, as did the previous Government: how can we find a way to persuade the Court to respect the views that the legislature may express without having to withdraw from the convention or the Council of Europe entirely, which, I have to say, would not come without cost or consequence for this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make a bit of progress and give way later.

Secondly, it is not the role of the European Court of Human Rights to legislate on who gets to vote in the UK. As the President of the Court and others argued in their dissenting opinion on Hirst,

“it is essential to bear in mind that the Court is not a legislator and should be careful not to assume legislative functions.”

That is why we argued in the Grand Chamber that the Court was acting ultra vires and why we believe it is for Parliament—and Parliament alone—to legislate on this for the UK.

Thirdly, the Government’s proposals that prisoners sentenced to custodial sentences of less than four years should retain the vote—if indeed they still are their proposals; they might not be, given what we have just heard—are far too generous and will not be acceptable to the vast majority of the British public. That is not to say that prisoners should be deprived of all their rights. Of course not—prisoners are humans. Torture and degrading treatment are repugnant. We abhor it when prisoners are treated as less than human in jails in Latin America, in Turkey or in Russia. In depriving someone of their liberty, however, the state should be able to decide that someone has also forfeited other freedoms. Prisoners retain a right to family life, as the European Court of Human Rights has rightly adjudged, but while in prison they cannot pick their children up from school or kiss them goodnight. They retain the right to freedom of expression and, for that matter, freedom of religion, but, by definition, they lose the right to freedom of assembly.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that choosing four years as the threshold is far too generous. I wonder whether Members have reflected on what that really means. It means 4,370 drug dealers getting the vote; it means almost 10,000 people involved in theft, burglary or robbery getting the vote; it means 1,753 rapists or people involved in serious sexual crimes achieving the vote; and it means 5,991 people involved in crimes against a person getting the vote. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that although we do not get a lot of letters from prisoners demanding the vote, we will get a heck of a lot of letters from victims and their families if we give those people the vote?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point extremely well, and I think that it has been taken by many Members.