§ 3.9 p.m.
§ Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether they intend to sign the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, if not, what are their reasons for not so doing.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)No, my Lords. The question of the reintroduction of capital punishment is left to a free vote in Parliament. It would be inappropriate for the Government to enter into an international agreement which pre-empted such a vote.
§ Lord HoosonMy Lords, as we abolished the death penalty for most offences in this country in 1965, and as the protocol allows for the emergencies of war or the imminence of war, why does this country not sign the protocol, so that it effectively would bring us into line with other European nations and not invite an annual debate on the matter?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I have just tried to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, why the Government have not done so. All decisions concerning the death penalty have always been by custom the result of a free vote in Parliament. If the Government were to accede to the request to sign the protocol it would mean that they would pre-empt the right of Parliament to change its mind if it so chose. We do not believe that that is right.
I would just point out to the noble Lord that he was quite right. The death penalty was abolished in 1965 for most cases. It still applies for treason under the Treason Act of 1814 and for piracy under the Piracy Act of 1837 and for certain treasonable offences under the armed forces Act of 1871. It is also still an offence to slay the Lord Chancellor.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, that is not the case. It applies only to the Lord Chancellor in his place and in the exercise of his office, which would add a new risk to the occupancy of the Woolsack.
Earl FerrersMy Lords, that is a matter of detail which would have to be decided when the unfortunate case, if it should occur, arose. I would remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who is only too well versed in the matter and doubtless when he took upon himself the responsibilities and duties of Lord Chancellor he found out exactly what he might have been letting himself in for, that it became an offence under the 1351 Treason Act and a hanging offence by virtue of the 1814 Act, but I am not certain whether it was a capital offence between 1351 and 1814.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, I gather that the situation was worsened when power was given to the Secretary of State to behead the offender against the Lord Chancellor. I have little doubt that the Government are not moving in that direction.
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I think that either option would be fairly disagreeable. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is quite right; the Government are not moving in that direction.