§ 3.9 p.m.
§ Baroness DavidMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Campbell and Cosans case.
§ The Earl of SwintonMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government are still considering this matter. An announcement will be made as soon as a decision has been reached.
§ Baroness DavidMy Lords, it is very disappointing to have exactly the same Answer that I had three months ago, and more than six months after the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill was withdrawn. Is the noble Earl aware that only yesterday another corporal punishment case was declared admissible by the European Commission of Human Rights—the L Family v. United Kingdom? If these cases go on being heard it is at very great expense to the United Kingdom, quite apart from anything else. Will the Minister try to hurry up some legislation to get rid of corporal punishment altogether? Can we expect there to be a clause in the school management Bill, which I understand is to be taken in this House early in March?
§ The Earl of SwintonMy Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is disappointed when the Government give a consistent reply to a persistent Question.
With regard to the case which was reported yesterday, the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the complaint has not yet been formally notified to the Government. When it is, it will be carefully considered. I am afraid that the noble Baroness, like me, will have to wait and see what is in the forthcoming Bill on education.
§ Lord BroxbourneMy Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the history of this case illustrates the slow and unsatisfactory working of the current machinery for the resolution of human rights issues? Does the noble Earl recall—and I am sure that, delving into the inexhaustible quarry of his knowledge, he does—that it was 1976 when Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Cosans submitted their complaints, 1980 when the Commission reported, 1982 when the European Court pronounced judgment?—and the matter is still outstanding. Is this not clear and convincing evidence of the need to provide judicial remedies in the courts of the United Kingdom? Will Ministers now review, revise and rationalise their hitherto disappointingly negative approach to the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill?
§ The Earl of SwintonNo, my Lords, I would not agree with my noble friend. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Campbell and Cosans was about respect for philosophical convictions and did not call for the abolition of corporal punishment.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, does my noble friend agree that, at a time when there are grave problems of discipline in our schools, it is more to the point to give freedom to teachers to take the measures which they think desirable than to put the decision in the hands of a clutch of Continental jurists remote from the scene and gorging themselves on pâté de foie gras in Strasbourg?
§ The Earl of SwintonMy Lords, I feel quite weak! As your Lordships know, I am on a very strict diet, and even the thought of pâté de foie gras fills me with such visions that I do not know whether I can answer the question! However, my noble friend has a very serious point. It is the Government's view that the decision on whether or not to use corporal punishment is best left to the professional judgment of teachers and to the wishes of parents.
§ Lord MulleyMy Lords, as the noble Earl has stressed the consistency of the Government's position, let me point out that he has on more than one occasion given an assurance that it is the Government's intention to comply with the European Court's judgment. As next month will be—as the noble Lord opposite has mentioned—the fourth anniversary of the judgment, would that not be an appropriate occasion upon which to introduce the very necessary small piece of legislation to give effect to it?
§ The Earl of SwintonYes, my Lords, I can reiterate that it is the Government's intention to comply with the ruling. However, as I said in answer to my noble friend earlier, the particular case was about respect for philosophical convictions and did not call for the abolition of corporal punishment.
§ Lord RentonMy Lords, does not the decision in this and some other cases reveal that the European Court of Human Rights is overruling our own laws from time to time and requiring us to change them? Has not the time come for us to reconsider our commitment in this matter?
§ The Earl of SwintonNo, my Lords, I would not agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. The European Court of Human Rights was established under the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom was one of the architects of the convention and was the first to ratify it. We cannot just opt out because we do not always agree with the judgments that we find inconvenient.
§ Lord Elystan-MorganMy Lords, does the noble Earl agree that when the ill-fated Bill was brought to this House in the last Session of Parliament, the Government gave the clear undertaking that it should conform with the ruling of the European Court? Is the resolution of the Government now any weaker than it was in the last Session of Parliament? If it is not any weaker, will the noble Earl kindly give an assurance that a Bill will be proposed to deal with this all-important matter in this Session?
§ The Earl of SwintonNo, my Lords. The decision of this House turned round the Bill which the Government considered was in keeping with the European Court, and that is why we are considering what action to take.
§ Lord O'HaganMy Lords, as my noble friend has not yet fully answered a question put earlier, will he now reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and say whether, in fulfilling that commitment, it would not be simpler if we incorporated the European Convention into British domestic law so that these embarrassing cases arose at home and not abroad and were decided by British judges and not by judges elsewhere?
§ The Earl of SwintonMy Lords, I think that I have answered that question. We are committed to the European Court of Human Rights, and we stand committed to it.