English: 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.
Welsh: Nid oes ganddynt sofraniaeth i wneud y penderfyniad na ddylai unrhyw un sy'n bwrw dedfryd o garchar gael yr hawl i bleidleisio, ac yn fy marn i mae'n gwbl briodol mewn gwlad ddemocrataidd y dylai cynrychiolwyr etholedig y bobl allu gwneud y dewis hwnnw os ydynt o'r farn ei fod er budd gorau eu pobl eu hunain. Oherwydd mae'r Confensiwn Ewropeaidd wrth gwrs yn rhoi'r hawl i ryddid na fyddai neb yn dadlau yn ei erbyn, ac mae pawb yn credu ei fod yn beth da. Ond wrth amddifadu rhywun o'i ryddid, rydym yn eu hamddifadu o hawliau sylfaenol eraill o dan y confensiwn neu'r siarter hawliau sylfaenol. Mae carcharorion yn cadw'r hawl i fywyd teuluol yn y carchar; ni chânt gasglu eu plant o'r ysgol na rhoi cusan nos da iddynt. Mae ganddynt hawl i ryddid mynegiant a rhyddid crefyddol, ond drwy ddiffiniad, maent yn colli'r hawl i ryddid i ymgynnull. Gan gymryd eu bod wedi'u heuogfarnu'n briodol, wrth gwrs, roedd gan unrhyw un sydd yn y carchar ddewis i'w wneud, cyn iddo ef neu hi gyflawni trosedd, y gallent beidio â chyflawni'r drosedd a gweithredu o fewn y gyfraith mewn gwirionedd, gan wybod, pe baent yn cael eu heuogfarnu a'u hanfon i garchar mai un o'r pethau y byddent yn eu colli yn ogystal â'u rhyddid i symud o amgylch y tu allan i waliau'r carchar yw'r rhyddid i bleidleisio. Mae'n ymddangos i mi fod hwnnw'n safbwynt cwbl dderbyniol gan unrhyw un sy'n ennyn ymddiriedaeth y bobl a etholwyd ganddynt, fel rydym ni yn y sefydliad hwn yn ei wneud. Yn wir, dywedodd Chris Bryant, yr Aelod Seneddol dros y Rhondda, mewn araith yn Nhŷ'r Cyffredin yn 2011: nid rôl Llys Hawliau Dynol Ewrop yw deddfu ynghylch pwy sy'n cael pleidleisio yn y DU. Fel y dadleuodd Llywydd y Llys ac eraill yn eu barn anghydsyniol ar Hirst, oherwydd mai mwyafrif o 12 i bump a arweiniodd at ddyfarniad Hirst, mae'n hanfodol cadw mewn cof nad yw'r llys yn ddeddfwrfa a dylai fod yn ofalus i beidio ag ymgymryd â swyddogaethau deddfwriaethol. Dyna pam yr ydym wedi dadlau - dyma a ddywedodd Chris Bryant - yn y Siambr Fawr - a sôn am Lywodraeth Lafur a wnâi - Dyna pam yr ydym wedi dadlau yn y Siambr Fawr fod y Llys yn gweithredu ultra vires a pham y credwn mai mater i'r Senedd - a'r Senedd yn unig - yw deddfu ar hyn ar gyfer y DU. Rwy'n ildio.