Death Penalty (India)

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I was pleased to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in his application to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. As hon. Members have said, it is very important that we in this Chamber make clear our views on the death penalty still being in use in India and around the world. We should stand up and show that we totally disapprove of that, and say that all nations should abolish the death penalty.

It is tragic that India, the largest democracy in the world, still uses the death penalty. The worst offenders are China, which is not a democracy, and Iran, which executes more people per head of population, including children, than any other nation. That is not a democracy, either. It is sad to me, and I am sure to many other hon. Members, that the United States is the leading democracy that still uses the death penalty. Our purpose today is to represent the views of the many Sikh and Punjabi citizens in our constituencies, as well as those who are not of Sikh or Indian origin, to show that we want to see India, that great nation and friend of the United Kingdom, abolish the death penalty for good. Many Members have given examples of why that should happen.

I pay tribute to those who started the Kesri Lehar—wave for justice—petition, which many hon. Members and I presented at No. 10 Downing street just before Christmas. In a way, that was the start of the process that led us to today’s debate, and we have had some superb contributions so far.

I am sure that many hon. Members recall Danny Boyle’s award-winning 2008 movie, “Slumdog Millionaire”. The opening scene shows a poor young man being tortured in a police station—an unfortunate but, according to some evidence, accurate image of what perhaps occurs in India. Many Members have already said that the death penalty is an inhuman and degrading punishment. It is irreversible and can be inflicted on the innocent. As many examples provided by hon. Members have shown, it has never deterred crime more effectively than other punishments. It should therefore be abolished in India, as it should be in all other countries. India should honour articles 3 and 5 of the universal declaration of human rights: the right to life and not to be tortured or subject to any cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said in his opening speech.

Let us look at the background to India’s use of the death penalty. On independence in 1947, India retained the 1861 penal code, which provided the death penalty for murder. It has been estimated that between 3,000 and 4,000 executions occurred in India between 1950 and 1980. It is more difficult to understand the impact of the death penalty since the 1980s. The international community has moved further towards abolishing the death penalty. On 19 November 2012, 110 countries approved a UN General Assembly draft resolution calling for a moratorium on all executions. India was part of a tiny minority that voted to retain capital punishment, arguing for it to be used sparingly and in cases of particularly heinous crimes. On 21 November 2012, India ended its unofficial eight-year moratorium on executions when it hanged Ajmal Kasab and followed that up on 9 February 2013 by hanging Afzal Guru. Both executions occurred in secrecy, with the families being informed only after they had taken place—that would shock anybody who was not already shocked by the use of the death penalty.

Pranab Mukherjee, India’s President, has now ordered the death penalty for seven convicts in the past seven months, which is more than any other Indian President in the past 15 years. India is currently reporting one death penalty sentence every third day, according to The Times of India this month. That all happened before the recent knee-jerk reaction to the change in the law to extend the death penalty following the horrific rape and murder in Delhi on 16 December 2012, which my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned. Human rights activists in India are worried that this precedent could affect the 500 or so people now on death row in India, including political prisoners such as Professor Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana. As of 11 February 2013, 476 convicts were on death row in India.

I wish to discuss the case of Professor Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar a bit more. Although many hon. Members have mentioned him specifically, I know from my constituents that his case is a real cause célèbre; he has been tortured and treated inhumanely in prison, all for bringing to the public’s attention his concern about the disappearance of 42 of his university students. Professor Bhullar was a lecturer at Guru Nanak Dev engineering college in Ludhiana, but he felt he had to flee India for a safer place in 1994, following threats to his life and harassment from the police for bringing this issue to the attention of the authorities and the media. As we have heard, he went to Germany, arriving on 18 December 1994. However, he was detained because the German authorities were not convinced of his claim, mainly because he had false papers on him, and he was deported, under escort, from Germany on 17 January 1995 and handed over to the Indian police at Indira Gandhi airport, New Delhi, by Lufthansa staff.

The Indian authorities gave specific assurances to the German authorities that Professor Bhullar had nothing to fear if he was returned to India and that he would not be tortured. However, as we know, he was arrested on his arrival and has now been in prison for more than 18 years, the past eight of them in solitary confinement, dealing with the daily threat of hanging. The professor’s mental health has deteriorated over the past two years and has now reached a life-threatening state. By deporting someone to a death penalty-prone country, Germany violated the European convention on human rights and remains morally obliged to do all it can now to seek the professor’s immediate release. Professor Bhullar was examined by a police-assigned medical doctor recently. Although the professor is a highly educated man, his medical examination document is co-signed by him with a thumbprint.

We know that the case against Professor Bhullar is highly dubious; it is based on information that has not been properly corroborated, with the prosecution having offered no corroboration at all. None of its 133 witnesses identified Professor Bhullar. Many witnesses actually claimed he was not the man they had seen. One prosecution witness, a rickshaw worker in Delhi, informed the court that he had no knowledge of the case but had been threatened and forced by the police to provide a false statement. Almost every legal system in the world is based on the idea of proof beyond reasonable doubt and respects procedures in order to obtain safe evidence. The Supreme Court of India seems to have departed from those things in the most important of all cases—that involving the death penalty—thus setting an unfortunate new precedent for Indian law.

I am aware that we are short of time today, and I do not want to take up too much more of the House’s time, but I am concerned that there is corruption in the Indian legal system. According to Transparency International, judicial corruption is attributable to factors in India such as

“delays in the disposal of cases, shortage of judges and complex procedures, all of which are exacerbated by a preponderance of new laws”.

However, no case of judicial corruption has ever been put on trial in India; under the Indian system, it is almost impossible to charge or impeach a judge. Another factor at work in India is the low ratio of judges per million of the population; there are as few as 12 or 13 judges per 1 million of population in India, as against figures of 107 in the United States—no surprise there—75 in Canada and 51 in the United Kingdom. The high work load in India encourages delays and adjournments on frivolous grounds. The judicial system, including judges and lawyers, has developed a vested interest in delays, as well as corruption; it promotes a collusive relationship between the different players.

I have been privileged in the past two and a half years—nearly three now—to chair the all-party group on British Sikhs. In that role, I have tried to bring to this House and to my fellow Members of Parliament some of the issues that Sikhs throughout the UK raise with me and with other MPs. These Sikhs are British citizens who form an integral part of so many constituencies and make such a huge contribution to the daily life in our constituencies. I am happy to say that in my constituency I have brought the Sikh community together with the big Jewish community that I represent, because they have so many values in common. Among those values, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, is that of respect for life which precludes violence of one person against another. When one goes to a gurdwara, as many of us have done, one feels that sense of respect for one another, and the respect of men for women and of women for men; it is a very welcoming and friendly environment.

I echo the comments made by the other Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), about visits to the golden temple in Amritsar. I went with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the former Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, on one of the Committee’s visits in 2006. Again, I felt that spirituality, sense of warmth and sense of equality as we walked around. So it was really good to see the Prime Minister of our country walking through the golden temple—through that holy place—barefoot, as people have to be, in his suit, as we had to be, and with his head covered. Although, clearly, I am not a Sikh, I was so moved by my visit that I rang one of my close friends in my constituency to tell him that I was standing there at that moment. He said to me, “God bless you for being there.”

So this debate is not about attacking our good friend, India; it is not about saying that India is a terrible place. We want India to be there with us in the group of nations that say that the inhumanity of the death penalty should be abolished. There should not be a moratorium; there should be a complete abolition. We want India to succeed. India is growing in importance in the world. India is our close friend, and many of us have close friends who are of Indian origin and who have family in India. I have visited the place three times now, so I hope that the result of this debate is that our Government will, as the Minister has said, put further pressure on the Indian Government. I hope that Members of Parliament will talk to their colleagues and friends in India, including perhaps those in the Lok Sabha, the Indian Parliament. I hope that we will talk to families we represent and that they will talk to their friends and family in India to change Indian public opinion about this important issue. I hope that India will see the sense of abolishing, once and for all, this inhuman and evil act of execution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to contribute. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate about this important issue of human rights and dignity. The Kesri Lehar petition has raised an essential debate about the use and abolition of the death penalty all over the world, but particularly in India, for many reasons. I have received an abundance of letters and correspondence from my constituents, irrespective of their faith and community, a majority of whom still have strong links with India and are dismayed by its continued use of this outdated, cruel and inhumane method of punishment. Just for clarification, I have the largest Sikh electorate—21.6%—in my constituency, so I have a moral authority to speak on their behalf on this matter.

The universal declaration of human rights, adopted by India, recognises the right to live and the right to be free from subjection to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. By keeping the death penalty, India goes against the fundamental rights that it has agreed to. It is one of only 58 countries to retain the death penalty, and one of only 20 to have applied the death penalty in practice in recent years. It cannot be acceptable for a democracy such as India to keep practising this unfair punishment.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on being the representative of the largest number of Sikh residents anywhere in the United Kingdom. His constituency is well known for that. Does he agree that a petition such as the one that has been presented to me and my colleagues will add to the pressure on the Government of India, because it is signed not only by Sikh community members but by non-Sikhs? Does he agree that organisations such as the Sikh Federation (UK) can persuade people to coalesce around this cause and have an extremely loud voice in the UK for the abolition of the death penalty in India?

[Mr Sharma]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend.

We cannot always assume that the judicial system is faultless. Therefore, using death, an irrevocable act, as a punishment for a crime, puts the system at risk of punishing the innocent irreversibly. There have been examples in the past of wrongful executions. It was the case of Timothy John Evans that, among others, contributed to the abolition of the death penalty in this country, after a long campaign by Labour MP Sydney Silverman. Evans was falsely convicted of murdering his wife and infant daughter, sentenced to capital punishment and hanged in 1950. It was three years later that the police discovered multiple bodies in the flat of downstairs neighbour and serial killer, John Christie, and realised their mistake. Can it really be just to execute a person who, while at the time of conviction is believed guilty, might well be innocent?

It is the mark of a modern civilised society that it does not tolerate torture and admits that a death sentence is not an appropriate way to respond to criminality. As the world’s largest democracy, India should adhere to these precepts. Every human being has an inalienable right to live; sentencing a person to death goes against that principle. The state and the judicial system cannot deprive an individual of the value of their life. Taking the life of an individual is also hugely inconsistent with the values that Indian culture prides itself and is based on—fairness and equality.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is believed to have said, “To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice.” I agree: justice cannot be provided with a reciprocal sentence. The justice system cannot proclaim, on the one hand, to condemn the act of killing and, on the other, exact punishment with death. This also establishes an inappropriate link between the state and violence, thus brutalising society and, to a degree, legitimising state violence. It is also abhorrent to note that there are still countries that hand capital sentences to individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. We should not tolerate the existence of the death penalty to punish those with different spiritual values or beliefs.

I would finally like to point out that, while there has been much justified consternation and outcry over the recent executions in India itself, unfortunately a growing number of voices in India have called for those men responsible for the brutal attack and rape of the young Damini to be hanged. I have spoken many times in this Chamber about my sadness and dismay at her tragic death, and I am heartened to hear calls for justice on her behalf. However, the death penalty is in no case justice: it is simply revenge. What India needs now is to reform the law and justice system to address the many underlying issues which perpetuate this endemic cycle of violence against women and girls, not to blindly apply capital punishment to the perpetrators.

As the Kesri Lehar petition states, I encourage the Indian Government to

“sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the UN Charter against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”.

As the world’s largest democracy and a multicultural, multi-religious and secular country, India should be a leader in the defence of human rights and fundamental rights, and abolish the death penalty, which taints its long history of peace-making.

UK-Turkey Relations

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I welcome this debate, which has been initiated as a result of the hard work of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and which provides an opportunity to talk about relations between the United Kingdom and Turkey. There is consensus across the House on the importance of having a positive relationship with Turkey, given its strategic position. In that context, we have heard references to Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and beyond. Given Turkey’s geographical location between east and west, between Europe, north Africa and the middle east, it makes perfect sense for us to have a constructive relationship with it.

Turkey’s economic importance has also been mentioned. We need to focus on its vibrant, dynamic economy, and I welcome our Government’s efforts to promote and make progress on the bilateral trade relations between our two countries. Allied with the Foreign Office’s remit in those areas is its remit to encourage improvements in the fields of democratisation and the adherence to human rights. Such improvements are vital not only for Turkey’s relationships with other countries but for the people of Turkey and the wider region.

I count myself as a friend of Turkey. I often speak to members of the Turkish-speaking diaspora in my north London constituency, but it is easy to place too much emphasis on the Government of that country, and on whether one is a friend of that country. I have heard people making strong criticisms of Turkish Government policy, but that does not mean that they cannot be a friend of Turkey. I judge my friendship on the basis of the people of the country, particularly those I meet in my constituency, who make an enormous contribution to this country. I want to be a friend, but perhaps also a critical friend, of Turkey.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I have chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Turkey since the beginning of this Parliament, and I am proud to do so. Given the hon. Gentleman’s desire to continue his friendship with people in his constituency who are originally from Turkey and with the Turkish people more generally, would he consider joining the all-party group, if he is not already a member of it?

[Mr Burrowes]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate. I am indeed a member of the group. I was recently invited to an all-party group visit, but if the hon. Gentleman is looking for names, I am not sure that I will be able to attend. My family is going to visit Turkey later in the summer.

In waxing lyrical about the positives of this latest report, there is a but. It relates to Cyprus. I do not ask for your leniency, Mr Speaker, in concentrating on Cyprus, as I see it as very much key to UK-Turkey relations. The report’s reference to Cyprus was minimal. I take the Chairman’s point that the Select Committee did not want to get too intervention-focused on issues surrounding Cyprus, but if we are considering UK-Turkey relations, Cyprus is very important. As paragraph 195 of the report states:

“Turkey’s EU accession process is effectively hostage to the reaching of a settlement on Cyprus.”

I understand that point, but the word “hostage” creates the impression that Turkey is a victim. The victims of the whole Cyprus issue are the people of Cyprus—both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and, indeed, other communities on the island. Those victims should be our focus, particularly when this country has historic responsibilities and is a guarantor power with legal responsibilities. It is important that Britain steps up to the plate. Over nearly four decades, this Parliament has seen some seemingly intractable problems in divided countries and countries at war, yet they have been solved. Cyprus, however, is still divided and is not settled. As parliamentarians, we must do all we can to raise the issue of Cyprus and not sidestep it. We must see it as central to making further progress towards positive relations between Britain and Turkey.

It is not just a matter of Cyprus alone, as the manner in which we abide by international agreements, Security Council resolutions and so forth also matters. How Turkey responds to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights matters, too. Such judgments go beyond, and have resonance beyond, Cyprus.

Reference has been made to Turkey’s record on human rights. One has to acknowledge that particular and significant progress has been made, but concerns remain about the free press and freedom of expression. We have heard about journalists who have recently been detained and we have heard about the disproportionate number of Turkish cases that have gone through to the ECHR.

A number of relatives of missing persons lost in the Cyprus conflict will come here next week. They come here every year. They can be seen on the green outside Parliament, usually with pictures of their lost relatives. What has also been lost is basic information and truth about their loved ones’ whereabouts. Progress has been made in Cyprus on a bi-communal basis to find the bones of the lost and to gain some element of truth. Unfortunately, however, there is a barrier, as they cannot get to the truth in areas under the control of Turkish forces. They cannot get information relating to relatives who went over to Turkey. The ECHR has said clearly that relevant information should be given to these relatives. Some of these people are citizens and constituents of mine and of other hon. Members. Year in, year out, they demand some element of truth, some information about basic human rights: they need to know what happened to their loves ones. The House has set up inquiries into missing persons, but in this case we are talking about people who have been missing for nearly four decades. Their relatives need to know the basic truth.

I am chair of the all-party Cyprus group, which will shortly conduct an inquiry to see whether we can support the good work going on under UN auspices in Cyprus to speed up this process. Turkey can help by abiding by the Court’s judgment and allowing relevant information to be given to relatives and to the authorities.

Another inquiry I have been involved in seeks to emphasise the positives in Turkey. I chaired an inquiry into the persecution of Christians in Iran for Christians in Parliament, which revealed the appalling abuses of brave people who had had to leave the country because of the persecution of themselves and their families. A number have been given refuge in Turkey. We should welcome that, and acknowledge its importance for Iranian Christians, some of whom I hope to meet when I visit Turkey. We should also note that Syrians have sought refuge there.

Let me return to the issue of Cyprus. We must not tolerate the intolerable. The status quo is unacceptable—unacceptable to us, given our relations with Turkey. We in Europe should not have allowed the existence of a divided capital and a divided island for so long. An area in the north of Cyprus is the most heavily militarised in the world, which is extraordinary. We should not accept that for the duration of the six-month presidency, saying “We shall just have to park it for six months, and see what the Irish can do when they have the presidency.” It cannot be right that Turkey does not recognise Cyprus as a sovereign nation. Britain does not have a remote responsibility; as I have said before, it is a guarantor power, and Cyprus has every right to take up the presidency which affirms its membership of the European Union and the sovereignty of the whole island.

As has been reported in the press, the Turkish Government recently said:

“no ministry or organisation of the Turkish Republic will take part in any activity that will be presided by southern Cyprus.”

I would expect our Government to agree that that is intolerable and unacceptable. Turkey wants to join Europe—it wants to join the club—but it must accept the rules which include a rotating presidency. Britain supports Turkey’s accession, but Turkey must not only recognise the Republic of Cyprus but fulfil its obligation under the Ankara protocol to allow Cypriot ships to use Turkish ports.

I want to be positive. The need for creativity has been mentioned, and both the report and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) referred to the opportunities presented by the hydrocarbon reserves. They are a new dynamic, and they are being explored in Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone for the benefit of the whole island and all its communities. That is crucial. The reserves are a natural resource for Cyprus alone, not for the guarantor powers. As the report says, that natural resource could facilitate a settlement and could enable Cyprus to rely less on the financial sector, which is increasingly fragile and volatile, on the recent EU bail-outs, and on the good will of Russian banks and interests.

It is also important to understand the wider dynamic: yes, a dynamic to support a settlement, but also one relating to the wider region which involves Turkey and Israel. There are agreements between the Republic of Cyprus and Israel, but the dynamic needs to be wider. There is an opportunity to provide a big source of energy for the region, and a source of security as well. We should welcome that development, and, given our expertise in this country, I hope that we can make real progress in supporting that resource for the benefit of Cypriots.

We also need to recognise that Turkey should not threaten Cyprus’s sovereign rights to explore and exploit hydrocarbon reserves in an exclusive economic zone. That is unacceptable, because that is threatening the very independence of the resource and Cyprus’s legal rights within the exclusive economic zone. We must not say that we have been fatigued by the Cyprus problem for so long that we will leave it to be solved by Cypriots. That should indeed happen, but we must exercise our responsibilities.

Another opportunity is presented by the Greek-Cypriot Varosha section of Famagusta, a small town on the east coast of Cyprus. Anyone who goes there will see the barbed wire. Varosha was frozen in time after being overrun by Turkish forces in 1974. It was sealed off, looted, became uninhabited, and has been decaying for nearly 40 years. However, we have the opportunity to accept United Nations Security Council resolutions 550 and 789, which call for Varosha to be under the control of the UN. If we can support Turkey in resolving this issue so that people can return to Varosha, it will create confidence and help greatly. If human rights are respected, information on missing people is given, the return to Varosha is supported and the natural gas question is addressed, we might be able to reunite Cyprus, which would be good for Cyprus, good for Turkey and good for UK-Turkey relations.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, I discussed all those issues with the new Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Mofaz, when I called him last Friday to congratulate him on the new coalition in Israel. My hon. Friend will be aware that the issue of the hunger strike appears to have been settled yesterday, with important changes to the way in which the prisoners will be treated by the Israelis. That is welcome. I reiterated the long-held position across this House on settlements, and we have condemned recent settlement announcements. We have continued to urge both the Israeli Government and the Palestinians to enter negotiations under the auspices of the Quartet to work towards a two-state solution. The creation of a Government in Israel with a huge majority in the Knesset provides an unusual opportunity to take forward such negotiations.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Hague]

I will not give way much more, as I am conscious of taking up a lot of the House’s time and I want to conclude my remarks.

Across the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence, we are determined to improve our ability to take fast, appropriate and effective action to prevent conflict and to help build stability overseas—the last subject I want to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

Of course I regret continued settlement building, because the position of the previous Government and, to be fair, that of the present Government are the same: settlement building in the occupied territories is illegal. That is why it was a matter of some pride that, when Secretary of State for International Development, I was able to commit funds to the Palestinian Authority to allow them to map the settlements themselves so that in the subsequent negotiations—alas, we are still waiting for them—there would be documentation allowing justice to be achieved and a proper settlement to be secured. It is a matter of regret, which I am sure is shared on both sides of the House, that so little tangible progress has been made in that regard. Progress seems to have stalled and efforts are needed to reinvigorate it.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I think that we all agree that a two-state solution is the answer, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that leading conflict resolution experts from Israel who are trying to come to the UK to promote a two-state solution, such as Dr Moti Cristal, are being denied a voice by certain organisations in the UK? Will he condemn that?

[Mr Alexander]

I am not familiar with the specific case of which my hon. Friend speaks, but I am clear that I do not regard boycotts on the basis of nationality as in any way constructive or helpful in achieving the two-state solution that we all want to see. That, in part, informed the position we took on the issue of universal jurisdiction when it came before the House, because surely we cannot be in a position in which those parties that are committed to a two-state solution are physically barred from countries and so are unable to enter them and facilitate that dialogue and those discussions. I will be very clear that those who continue to argue that the way forward is to seek to isolate and somehow delegitimise the state of Israel, whatever political party or organisation in the United Kingdom they are in, do a disservice to the pursuit of peace, and the absence of hope about those negotiations is one of the greatest threats to seeing and securing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). I associate myself with his comments about Morocco. I did not realise that he was the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Morocco. I feel very inclined to join it after his remarks. I have been to Morocco on several occasions and have friends in that country. Indeed, a late great uncle of mine was once the mayor of Tangier. That helped my Jewish family in the second world war, who took refuge in Morocco. I think that Morocco is the only Arab country that recognises an Israeli passport and allows joint citizenship with Israel.

[Dr Murrison]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks. It is not said loudly enough that the story of Morocco is one of tolerance. In particular, the record of the former sultan in supporting the Jewish community, particularly around Casablanca, against the Vichy French is a powerful example. Morocco ought to be very proud of that.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that I can join his group and work with him for the benefit of Anglo-Moroccan relations, which are important to this country and to the Arab world.

I will concentrate on one major issue that concerns me, which I hope the Government will take up. Indeed, the Government have made their views on it fairly clear, but they need to do more. It is the issue of Tibet.

Yesterday, I was privileged to be invited to St Paul’s cathedral to hear the address by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, Tenzin Gyatso. He was awarded the prestigious Templeton prize, which is awarded for a person’s spiritual contribution to humanity. It is now 100 years since the birth of the prize’s founder, Sir John Templeton.

St Paul’s, as Members will know, is a wonderful venue for any ceremonial. To be there in the presence of so many people, but especially the Dalai Lama, and to hear his magnificent speech about compassion, peace and love for all humanity was very uplifting. It made me realise that the attempts by the Chinese Government to bring the Dalai Lama into disrepute, calling him a “splittist” and even, on some occasions, a terrorist, are complete and utter nonsense. We know that this is a man who stands up for peace and love for all humanity. How can the Chinese Government, who have such a poor record of human rights violations, accuse somebody such as the Dalai Lama of what they accuse him of? I hope that our Government will put further pressure on the Chinese Government to ensure that the human rights violations all over that country, but especially in Tibet, are brought to an end, or at least brought to public notice.

I want to draw attention to the case of one individual. His name is Dhondup Wangchen. He was a renowned filmmaker in Tibet until 2008, when he was arrested for making a film about the effect of the Olympics in Beijing on the people of Tibet. It was a modest film, as anybody who has seen it will know, in which the Tibetan people who were interviewed said, “It would be nice if we had a chance to share in the interest and pleasure of watching live sport, especially something as prestigious as the Olympics, but the Government won’t let us because we are Tibetan.” For that film, Dhondup Wangchen was arrested, supposedly tried and imprisoned for eight years. He is still in prison. He is currently suffering from a hepatitis C infection that is damaging his health, and he is being denied the appropriate health care.

I hope that the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary will bring the case of Dhondup Wangchen to the attention of the Chinese Government, as well as the cases of the many other Tibetans who have been arrested simply for supporting the Dalai Lama. It is now a criminal offence in Tibet to put up a portrait of His Holiness. One does not have to do anything but put up a portrait that is then seen. That is why many Tibetans now hide his portrait in a cupboard or somewhere else where it cannot be seen by spies and people who are there on behalf of the Chinese Administration.

We know what the Dalai Lama has written. All that he has ever asked for is true autonomy for Tibet. No longer is the argument put forward that Tibet wants to be a proud, autonomous, independent nation once again. I think that many Tibetans wish that that was the case, but they so revere the Dalai Lama that they would not deny or contradict his “middle way” approach. That is something that the British Government should support.

In 2006, just six years ago this month, I was privileged to be part of the Foreign Affairs Committee delegation that went to Lhasa. It was a fascinating experience. The visit was brought about by the determination of my colleague on the Committee at the time, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). He persisted in arguing that we should be allowed to go, in the face of Foreign Office resistance and, of course, resistance from the Chinese Government. But go we did. There were five of us, the others being my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and two former Members, Andrew Mackinlay and Richard Younger-Ross.

We were accompanied by 10 people from Beijing, if I recall correctly, to ensure that we did not stray off the path that the Chinese Administration had set down for us. None the less, Andrew Mackinlay and I managed to escape our minders one afternoon, after three days in Lhasa, to explore the Barkhor markets and talk to people, although they were scared to talk to foreigners. That gave us a true insight into the way in which the Chinese Government are trying to make the people of Tibet Chinese; the way in which Han Chinese people are being encouraged to move into the new housing that is being built in Lhasa; the way in which the Tibetan language is demoted, even for Tibetan children in the schools in that country; and the way in which nomads are being forced to live in fixed accommodation, no longer able to pursue the lifestyle and culture that they have had for centuries. The culture of Tibet—its costume, its cultural festivities, its celebrations and the very faith of Buddhism—is being eroded in the name of standardisation and Chinese-ification.

Our Government need to stand up and speak louder for the future and self-determination of the Tibetan people before it is too late. My fear, and that of right hon. and hon. Members who support the Tibetan cause, many of whom were at St Paul’s cathedral yesterday, is that in 20 or 50 years’ time, there will be a Tibetan diaspora but no Tibetan people still living in Tibet. That would be a tragedy.

Yesterday, His Holiness the Dalai Lama acknowledged his debt to the people and Government of India, who welcomed him when he was forced into exile in 1959, where he has been ever since in Dharamsala. Each year, with the support of the Tibet Society, the all-party Tibet group, which I chair, tries to organise a trip to Dharamsala and McLeod Ganj for parliamentarians to meet the brilliantly organised Tibetan Government-in-exile and see their Parliament, their artistic and cultural organisations and their political prisoners’ organisation, from which we hear the most harrowing tales. Best of all, we see the Tibetan children’s village, where children who have walked across the Himalayas to escape the oppression of the Chinese Government and Communist party, often unaccompanied by their parents, come into India and are welcomed with open arms. They are supported by many western and eastern people, many of whom come from Japan. It is so uplifting to see how those children are looked after.

I do not want to go into the debate that we will continue to have about the rights and wrongs of what is happening between Israel and the Palestinian people, but the director of the Tibetan children’s village went to Israel to see how the kibbutzim were managed and organised. When I was last there, I could not help but think that the village was run along the lines of a kibbutz. It seemed very much like it. I said to the director, “This seems strange. Have you been to Israel?” He said, “Yes we have. We went there to see what a kibbutz was like, and we put their principles into practice here so that our children could benefit from collective living and a co-operative upbringing together.” Their parents are often stuck in Lhasa or other towns and villages in Tibet.

Tibet will die if we do not continue to support it. We should not be afraid of the Chinese bullies. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were there yesterday to meet His Holiness at St Paul’s cathedral, and I congratulate them. However, I am also aware, as many Members will be if they read this morning’s papers, that the Chinese Government expressed in the strongest possible terms their anger at the fact that our Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister had had the temerity to meet the Dalai Lama. We must stand up against this bullying.

When the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Beijing, the Chinese people’s foreign affairs committee threatened us with all sorts of retribution if we visited Taiwan. We were told it would have far-reaching damaging effects on the relationship between the UK and China. We went to Taiwan, and no damaging effect was felt at all. We must stand up to these bully-boy tactics, stand up for Tibet and stand up for the message of peace, love and compassion that His Holiness the Dalai Lama continues to put forth without fear or favour.

Iran (Human Rights)

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

During the previous Parliament, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs went to Iran in autumn 2007, and in February 2008 it published a report that went into considerable detail on many issues, including the human rights situation. The Select Committee concluded that Iran is a complex and diverse society ruled by a theocratic regime. My impressions are of a young country that wants to engage with the rest of the world, but is prevented from doing so by the policies of the ruling clique. However, another problem is that there is not one ruling group; that touches on the point about how the authorities sometimes move in unexpected ways, because decisions are not taken in a way that is transparent from our point of view.

How we deal with a country such as Iran is a dilemma. On the one hand, we try to encourage a process of openness and reform, but on the other, we recognise its appalling behaviour, whether in systematically breaching obligations under the non-proliferation treaty; sponsoring terrorist actions in other countries; or defending the autocratic, repressive Syrian regime, as it is doing at the moment. We and the European Union had problems with the policy of so-called “constructive engagement”, which has run into the sand. We saw the newly elected President Obama extending his hand to the Iranians when he came to office in early 2009 and being snubbed. How do we deal with a country of that kind?

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I, too, was in the delegation to Iran in November 2007. Would my hon. Friend agree that we were given privileged access to, among other things, some of the dissenters? Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), there are quite a number of dissidents who stand up for the things that they believe in—a free, open, democratic and pluralist Iran—despite being oppressed day in, day out.

[Mike Gapes]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point, but I think that we were not “given privileged access”; rather, our diplomats made it possible for us to engage with some people. It was a privilege for us, but those people were taking great risks in contacting us, and some of them are no longer in Iran and are not allowed to return, due to their activities at that time and because they would not be secure and safe.

I want to conclude by making a contrast. BBC journalists are not allowed to report in Iran, and the Iranian authorities make systematic efforts to jam international broadcasts and satellites, including the BBC World Service Persian television service, which has been very popular with the Iranian people. The regime tries very hard to keep from the people the truth about the atrocities in June 2009, when protestors against the rigged election were on the streets in huge numbers, and about what subsequently happened to protestors’ families. Propaganda is broadcast to Iranian homes by state-controlled Press TV, including broadcasts from London of people who claim that the demonstration against tuition fees was parallel to the protests of June 2009.

Will the Minister say something about the anomaly of the BBC not being allowed in Iran and foreign broadcasts systematically being prevented from getting through to Iran—so far as the regime is able to prevent that—when we allow representatives of the Iranian Government, through their mouthpiece, Press TV, to broadcast propaganda about this country that completely distorts what is happening in the world? Given the current crisis, and the fact that diplomatic relations are broken, I find it difficult to see why we do not take steps to prevent Press TV from behaving in such a way. Would we have allowed Nazi media to broadcast from London in 1939? I ask that question as a serious point for us to think about for the future.

Sergei Magnitsky

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Bellingham]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in his own inimitable way. I would not want anyone to have the impression that I was describing this case as routine, because obviously it is not. What I said was that the Government have a policy of not commenting routinely on individual cases. Obviously, this is an incredibly serious case, and I take on board what he has said.

On visa action taken by other countries, we are aware of media reports that the US has imposed sanctions on implicated officials and added them to a visa application watch list. Although Bills have been introduced in the US Congress and some other countries’ Parliaments, such as in the Netherlands and Canada, and motions have been passed in support of visa bans against Russian officials allegedly implicated in Mr Magnitsky’s death, we are not aware that those states have taken such action.

What we ultimately want—as all Members will agree, I believe—is the Russian Government to take the initiative in ensuring that justice is achieved in this case and in putting in place measures to prevent further such cases occurring. To that end, we are urging the Russian Government to conduct a full and transparent investigation into Mr Magnitsky’s death, and we continue to raise the case at the highest levels.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he says about the action that the Foreign Office is taking and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) for raising the issue in the first place. This case is of the utmost importance. Will the Minister act in concert with his European colleagues, so that all the nations of the European Union can show their anger at the way in which this lawyer has been treated and at the abuse and violation of human rights in Russia today?

[Mr Bellingham]

I will certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s strong comments are passed on to the Minister for Europe, so that he will speak to his European counterparts about this case at the next appropriate Council. He has already raised it with them, and similar action has been taken by other European countries. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman says, we will ensure that the case is raised again.

I should like to say a few words about the wider situation in Russia. The FCO’s annual human rights report makes it clear that we remain concerned about the rights afforded to Russian citizens and the strength of democracy. The Russian Government’s support for human rights often appears ambivalent. As President Medvedev has acknowledged, there is a pressing need to strengthen the rule of law in Russia. Legislative changes to reduce corruption represent a tentative step in the right direction. Reports of grave human rights abuses in the north Caucasus continue, and Russian human rights defenders and journalists remain at high risk. In some cases, though, we have seen some minor positive developments.

The state Duma parliamentary elections have been the key recent test of Russia’s democratic credentials. The conduct of those elections confirmed our concerns about human rights and democracy in Russia. Before the elections, NGOs and media organisations were routinely harassed. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe was permitted to observe the elections. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that they had been

“slanted in favour of the ruling party”.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said on 6 December, those conclusions underline the need for alleged electoral violations to be investigated rapidly and transparently and to ensure that all democratic institutions, including the media, civil society and opposition political groups, can operate freely in Russia.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are much obliged to the Minister.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I should like to declare an interest.

Following the self-immolation of nine Tibetan monks in the past few weeks, what representations have the British Government made to the Chinese authorities to stop the consistent and systematic eradication of Tibetan culture, religion and language, and to give the Tibetan people their much needed and correct desire for self-determination?

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

The Government continue to have the same policy as the previous Government with regard to Tibet’s position in China, but we still make representations on a regular basis with respect to human rights and the conditions of the Tibetan people.