| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Norris: No. I regret that there is no such compensation, but I should make it clear that I take such matters very seriously.
I have been concerned to take account of one particular issue. I can tell the House in quite unequivocal terms that no jobs have been lost in the sense that the reservoir of jobs available in Britain has been diminished. The Government occasionally agree to proposals that have the effect of reducing the number of jobs that are available, and no Minister would take such a decision lightly, but I stress that the availability of jobs has not been diminished by the measure.
Some drivers who fail the medical standards may be excluded from some jobs. I have genuine and great sympathy for the people to whom the hon. Member for Newport, East has referred, but I reiterate that in the difficult matter of having to judge the interests of safety against the livelihoods of a small number of individuals, I have taken a decision--I accept that it is not an easy one, but I am not here to make easy decisions. I listened to the evidence and read the 95 responses to the consultation paper, and I shall make them available to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, so that he can see the arguments for himself.
Contrary to some misleading reports, most other EU member states simply have not yet reached a firm view on grandfather rights, although Austria is also abolishing grandfather rights. Press reports to the contrary are simply and unequivocally wrong.
I confirmed the Commission's view this morning with a Mr. Brisaer from DGVII. Its view is that any driver renewing a licence must comply with the requirements of the second directive, including the medical standards. The official even thought that there was an argument for making the new standards apply to all drivers immediately, but thought that might be too restrictive an interpretation. The official specifically denied that the Commission is prepared to
the claim attributed in the Daily Mail to Mr. Smolders of the international road transport union. It is simply not the case that we are being more communautaire than the Commission or applying standards in this country that are uniquely draconian to our drivers.
Let me reiterate the absolutely essential point: 0.2 per cent., or one fifth of 1 per cent., of those currently licensed to drive will be affected. In practice, what will happen in many cases is that those drivers will continue to drive for companies but will drive vehicles of under 7.5 tonnes, as they are perfectly entitled still to do. No doubt other drivers currently perhaps driving smaller vehicles will take their jobs and so on but, in the circumstances, I am clear that we have made the right decision.
I hope that I have been able to restore some sense of perspective after the quite hysterical reporting of the issue. I know the hon. Member for Newport, East very well--
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
There is a rising tide of anger in this country at the apparently increasing number of judgments from remote European courts that fly in the face of sound common sense. Increasingly, those judgments are defying the will of the House and are overriding law passed after due consideration here and voted on by elected representatives of the British people. We must deal with that dangerous phenomenon.
We must distinguish between the judgments of the European Court of Justice and those of the European Court of Human Rights. Only yesterday, a European judgment prescribed massive compensation payments to Spanish fishermen banned from fishing in British waters, and the compensation payments are to be at the expense of the British taxpayer. Not so long ago, there was a ludicrous judgment to the effect that the Ministry of Defence should compensate service women dismissed on becoming pregnant, despite the terms and conditions of service that they accepted before entering the armed forces. Both were judgments of the European Court of Justice. That court is a separate and major problem worthy of careful consideration, but that matter is not for today's debate.
This debate is concerned with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Let us consider some recent cases which highlight the problems and which have enraged a clear majority of the British population and,I am sure, of hon. Members.
First, in August last year, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that the legal costs of bringing a case should be paid by the British Government to the relatives of the IRA terrorists who were killed during an operation that they were carrying out to place a bomb in Gibraltar. Let us remember that that bomb would have killed or maimed many service men and innocent bystanders.
Secondly, it was ruled last month that the Home Secretary, who is answerable to the House, may no longer determine how long juvenile murderers must stay in custody for the protection of the public and that such decisions should be passed to the Parole Board. That means that, however strongly people and Parliament feel about a particular case, there will be no redress through our democratic system.
Thirdly, as long ago as 1982, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that corporal punishment in schools infringed the rights of parents. Some schools attempted to devise a parental authorisation form, but the resultant inequities among children were such that corporal punishment in state schools was effectively abolished. That was done in response to a legal requirement, not as a result of mature reflection or of that sanction being replaced with one just as effective.
More than 10 years later, it can be argued that the current problems of indiscipline in our schools stem from that decision. We have expected our teachers to maintain an orderly school environment without the adequate sanctions to enforce it. It was a triumph of idealism, enforced by remote and irresponsible judges, over the popular will and, dare I say it, over common sense.
Only yesterday, a Ministry of Defence report was published showing that 80 per cent. of service men oppose the lifting of the ban on homosexuality in the armed
services. Only 5 per cent. said that the ban should be lifted immediately. Common sense and popular opinion have spoken, yet four dismissed homosexuals are taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights. If they win, our courts, our procedures and the express wish of service men and of the House will be overruled yet again and taxpayers' money will be disbursed yet again.
There is a range of further cases in which law passed in the House has been overruled--I am thinking of anti-terrorist, contempt and blasphemy laws, among others.
Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton):
The point is that the European Court of Human Rights may well have been set up for sensible reasons some 50 years ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the circumstances in which it was established, but it has become increasingly political as a court. While I have no objection to British citizens taking matters to a final court when British legislation is ambiguous or when the administration of law in this country has not been satisfactory--as I fear is sometimes the case--it is unacceptable to hon. Members and our electorate that the definite will of Parliament, as expressed in legislation, should be overruled by a foreign court.
Mr. Arnold:
That is precisely what is happening--the court is overruling the House. After such cases, Ministers have all too often come to the House to amend the law, not because it has proved right to do so after mature consideration and debate, but because we have to fall into line with the latest European Court ruling. Clearly, those are cases of judge-made law, not law made by representative democracy.
Why are we getting those increasingly bizarre judgments? I believe that it is because, as with so many of our European institutions, there has been a distortion of the original intentions of the founding fathers and because circumstances in Europe have changed out of all recognition in the past 45 years.
Let us consider the circumstances in 1950, when the convention on human rights was signed. Europe was recovering from the horrifying excesses of the Nazi regime and was only too aware of the fiendish actions of the Soviet regime with its gulags. Those tragic events coloured the views and actions of the politicians who were then responsible.
The late Duncan Sandys, then the right hon. Member for Streatham, told the House on 13 November 1950:
Robert Boothby, the then hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, said in the same debate that
"view sympathetically any individual states wanting to keep current minimum standards"--
1 pm
"The Government may, of course, say that human rights in this country are so safe in their hands that no outside protection is needed. We need not argue about that today. The fact remains there are certain countries in Western Europe with large Communist elements, which attach the greatest possible importance to the support which this Court can give them in certain circumstances."
"the Communist tactic is a brilliantly devised technique of infiltration, treason and ultimate violence, and the destruction of the non-Communist world by the fomentation of disputes. Against this technique, which exploits all methods of democracy, there is only one answer--the Charter of Human Rights."--[Official Report,13 November 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1412-27.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |