They don't have the sovereignty to make the decision that anybody serving a custodial sentence should not have the right to vote, and I think it's perfectly proper in a democratic country that the elected representatives of the people should be able to make that choice if they think it's in the best interests of their own people. Because the European convention does of course give the right to freedoms that nobody would contest, and everybody thinks it is a good thing. But, in depriving somebody of their liberty, we're depriving them of other fundamental rights under the convention or the charter of fundamental rights. Prisoners retain a right to a family life whilst in prison; they can't pick their children up from school or kiss them goodnight. They retain the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion, but by definition they lose the right to freedom of assembly.

Anybody who ends up in prison, assuming that they're rightfully convicted, of course had a choice to make before he or she committed a crime, that they could actually not commit the crime and act within the law, knowing that, if convicted and sent to prison that one of the things that they would lose along with their freedom to move around outside the prison walls is that they would lose the freedom to vote. It seems to me that that is a perfectly acceptable position for anybody who has the trust of the people elected by them, as we are in this institution, to hold. Indeed, Chris Bryant, the Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, in a speech in the House of Commons in 2011 said this:

'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,' because it was a 12 to five majority that gave Hirst his judgment,

'"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'— this is what Chris Bryant said—

'in the Grand Chamber'— and it was a Labour Government that he was talking about—

'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.'

I give way.