Prisoner voting ruling from Strasbourg must be followed, says attorney general A coalition source said the issue of whether prisoners are allowed to vote had caused 'a blue-on-blue row' within the Conservative party. The attorney general has said Britain should abide by a European court of human rights (ECHR) ruling on prisoner voting as it emerged the government is planning a draft bill introducing limited rights for inmates, despite fierce opposition from Conservative backbenchers. Dominic Grieve, answering questions at the Commons justice committee on Wednesday warned it was technically possible the UK could be thrown out of the Council of Europe if it ignored the Strasbourg court's ruling. Embarrassed government ministers are likely to defer the hugely controversial announcement until just before a late-November deadline, allowing it to be made after the police commissioner elections on 17 November. One government source said: "No party wants to put this in their 'last-week grid' for these elections. The announcement is still causing friction, with one coalition source saying most of the dispute was now "a blue-on-blue row," within the Conservative party. Downing Street refused to comment directly on the Guardian story about plans for the draft bill. A spokesman said: "If people go to prison they lose the right to vote. That's our policy. Harder-line Tory backbenchers, such as Dominic Raab, have argued there is practically no danger of a fine from the European court should Britain not introduce votes for prisoners, and absolutely no chance of the UK being kicked out of the Council of Europe. But Grieve has told ministers they have to accept the ruling of the human rights court after repeated appeals have failed. Grieve has been a supporter of reform of the court, but not UK withdrawal, saying that would make Britain a pariah state. On Wednesday he told MPs on the justice committee: "The United Kingdom government is adherent to the convention. The convention is one of our international legal obligations. And successive governments, including this one, have always put a great emphasis on the observance of our international legal obligations. We live in a world where international law matters increasingly ... We do observe international obligations that are imposed on us. He said Britain's international reputation would suffer if the ruling was ignored and that it could be costly in terms of compensation claims stacking up against the government. "I have absolutely no doubt it would be seen by other countries as a move away from our strict adherence to human rights laws," he said. He refused to say if a draft bill would be produced on the matter, but said there was considerable flexibility on how the ruling could be implemented. He said that ultimately parliament could chose to ignore the ruling. "It is entirely a matter for parliament ultimately ... to determine what it wants to do," he said. Parliament is sovereign in this area. Nobody can impose a solution on parliament. Conservative MPs took to Twitter to express their opposition to any concessions on prisoner voting rights. Zac Goldsmith tweeted: "MPs almost unanimously rejected votes for prisoners. If it happens all the same, does that mean the UK Parl officially no longer matters? Nick de Bois and Douglas Carswell indicated that they and many other backbenchers would vote against the plan. Liberal Democrat ministers still support compliance with the ECHR, but do not want to be seen any longer to be in the vanguard on an issue that is likely to make them deeply unpopular. Labour does not favour prisoner voting rights but does not want to be seen to be ignoring the court. The political advantage of agreeing to publish a draft bill is that the government would not be seen to be in open defiance of the court in that it would be taking steps with the court order to introduce legislation on prisoners' rights. Yet, in practice, a draft bill might take years to reach the statute book, since it would require wide consultation and allow amendment by a joint committee of both houses. The two alternatives are to table a fresh Commons motion, or to publish a bill. In a marathon legal battle going back to 2004, the court has repeatedly ruled that a general and automatic disenfranchisement of all serving prisoners is incompatible with European law. Ministry of Justice sources denied they would comply with the ruling by publishing a draft bill, and stressed they were the lead department on the issue and opposed the right of prisoners to vote. They refused to discuss the state of internal negotiations, or whether a draft bill might be a means of deferring a decision. No 10 also denied there had been any decision to give prisoners voting rights. Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, accused the government of creating another confusing shambles: "The Tory-led government's sheer confusion this morning over whether prisoners will or won't get the vote is yet another illustration of the ridiculously shambolic way they are running our country. The public will be rightly concerned at reports prisoners could get a vote. If true, thousands of those serving sentences for serious and violent crimes such as wounding, assault and domestic violence would be given a say in who runs the country. Instead of the chaos of leaks and spin we've seen this morning, the public deserve the truth about the government's intentions.