Hansard

Mr Arthur’s summary is, indeed, a fact—as is the fact that the minister and his colleagues founded on a misunderstanding of the Hirst judgment in order to push the change through. I come to that judgment now.

I think that a lot of MSPs in the chamber agree with me, but they will seek comfort, as the minister does in his amendment, in their misunderstanding of the European convention on human rights. They think to themselves, “Look—I don’t like it, but we must do this to be compliant with the ECHR.” That argument is fundamentally flawed, because nowhere does the convention accord an individual right for prisoners to vote. Indeed, for 23 years, until the European Court of Human Rights sought to discover it in the Hirst case, in 2005, there was no such right.

I remind members that Professor Adam Tomkins described the Hirst judgment as

“one of the worst judgments that the European Court of Human Rights has ever handed down”,

predicated as it is

“on a false premise ... that there is a blanket ban on”

prisoners voting in the UK.

In November 2019, the minister himself reminded the chamber that

“Members who are familiar with the Hirst ruling know that the court allows member states a wide margin of appreciation”

and that

“there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ensuring compliance”.—[Official Report, 28 November 2019; c 98, 64.]

That margin is part of our law. During consideration of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill, the Law Society of Scotland made it clear that

“the franchise of prisoners may be restricted, provided that the restriction is proportionate to”

achieving

“a legitimate aim”,

such as

“enhancing civil responsibility and respect for the rule of law”—[Official Report, Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, 19 September 2019; c 14.]

and avoiding sanctioning law-breaking conduct.

That is why the United Kingdom’s solution to the Hirst case—to give the right to vote to prisoners who are released on temporary licence—has been accepted as a solution by the Committee of Ministers, which is the enforcement agency of the Council of Europe. That is why the European Court has never found that the United Kingdom’s refusal to comply with that ill-considered judgment should result in any kind of damages for disenfranchised prisoners from the United Kingdom or from any Government within it. That is why this Parliament is not, and never was, required by the Hirst judgment to enfranchise prisoners.

There should be no doubt that any member who votes to enfranchise prisoners at decision time tonight will not be required by any law or legal principle to do so, because compliance with Hirst can be achieved by going no further than what the rest of the UK does. I appreciate that there are members who understand that, but believe that rehabilitation prospects are increased by giving prisoners the right to vote. They make that suggestion on the supposition that participating in elections is likely to encourage prisoners to become responsible, law-abiding citizens through what the minister has called “active citizenship”.

In a debate last year, Alex Rowley said that policy should be driven by evidence. I could not agree more. When the bill to which the minister’s amendment refers was debated and passed, neither he, nor any member of the Parliament, adduced a single shred of evidence to suggest that giving prisoners the vote increases the prospects for rehabilitation. There is nothing to that effect in the Audit Scotland report on “Reducing reoffending in Scotland”, nor was such evidence given to the Equalities and Human Rights Committee, which included in its report the following quote in evidence from a criminologist who has studied the issue:

“I have not found evidence to say that the introduction of prisoner voting will lead to a lower rate of recidivism”.—[Official Report, Equalities and Human Rights Committee, 25 January 2018; c 12.]

I predict that the final refuge of those who seek to justify giving prisoners the vote will be a plea based on some form of right to vote, but I ask them to reflect on this. Victims, such as those who have suffered serious assault, attempted murder and sexual assault, which are crimes that, in the past few years, have attracted sentences of 12 months or less, will be watching this debate. They will be asking, “Where were my human rights? What happened to my right to freedom from discrimination, my right to security and my right not to suffer inhuman or degrading treatment?”

When I walk out of the chamber after decision time tonight, I will look victims and their relatives in the eye and say that my Conservative colleagues and I voted to ensure that no individual who is serving a prison sentence should be allowed to vote in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election. My conscience will be clear. Will members of the other parties be able to say the same?

I move,

That the Parliament believes that no individual serving a prison sentence, including criminals convicted of serious assault, robbery and sexual offences, should be allowed to vote in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election.