Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in deciding how to abide by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v United Kingdom, they will have regard to (a) the reasoning in the judgment of 8 December 2008 of Judge Andrew Cheung in the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong in Chan Kin Sum deciding that a blanket ban on prisoners’ voting is unconstitutional; and (b) the Government of Hong Kong’s response. [HL785]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach):
As with previous legal challenges in other jurisdictions on the issue of prisoners’ voting rights, Her Majesty’s Government are studying (a) the reasoning behind this judgment and (b) the response by the Government of Hong Kong carefully. The Government must arrive at a solution that is best for the UK, and, to that end, remains committed to carrying out a second public consultation.

Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill

To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 15 January (WA 168—74), whether they will be able to ratify the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights with appropriate reservations to meet their concerns in relation to passports and the right of abode. [HL938]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 15 January (WA 168—74), which provision in Article 2 of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights confers rights in relation to passports and a right of abode on British nationals who do not currently have that right. [HL939]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Bach on 15 January (WA 168—74), whether their concerns about Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights are based on rulings of the European Court of Human Rights; and, if not, what they are based on. [HL941]

Lord Bach:
The Government have no plans at this time to seek to ratify the Fourth Protocol with reservations. The Government’s concerns with Article 2 relate to the particular nature of British nationality and immigration arrangements which permit a person to be lawfully within United Kingdom territory without necessarily permitting them to be lawfully within all parts of United Kingdom territory. This may particularly conflict with the provision under Article 2(1) that “Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence”. This assessment has been made by the Government on the basis of the advice of officials and lawyers; there would obviously be no substantive assessment of the compatibility of British law and policy with these obligations by the European Court of Human Rights or our domestic courts unless and until the obligations were accepted by the United Kingdom.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90128w0003.htm