Hansard

Yes, I do, Presiding Officer.

I do not propose to rehearse the arguments, as that was done in depth on 20 February this year. However, I have read the Official Report of the relevant proceedings on that day, and I note that four key arguments were advanced in favour of giving the vote to prisoners who are serving sentences of less than 12 months. The first of those was that the Hirst judgment requires it, but anyone who has read that judgment knows that it does not. The second argument was that it was required to ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights, but anyone who is familiar with the ECHR knows that that is not the case. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon.

The third argument was that those prisoners who are serving sentences of less than 12 months have committed less serious crimes, but the statistics show that such sentences are also given for crimes that include attempted murder, serious assault and sexual offences. Finally, it was argued that giving prisoners who are serving sentences of less than 12 months the vote will help the process of making them more responsible citizens, who will make a greater contribution to society when they leave prison, but no evidence was adduced to support that assertion.

Therefore, the four key arguments that underpin this legislation do not stack up, and—unlike with other matters that fall within the portfolio of the Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs—I think that the cabinet secretary is aware of that. Indeed, some might say, on the basis of reading the Official Report, that he tacitly accepts it. Despite that, he pushed through the initial prisoner voting change without scrutiny during last summer’s recess. Now, the SSI before us is being considered by a half-empty chamber, without the cabinet secretary present, in the middle of a pandemic. That is not transparent and it is not good law making; it is a slap in the face for victims and it is shoddy politics, and I will have none of it.