Death Penalty (India)

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I could not concur more strongly. I shall discuss that point later in my speech.

There is also concern that India is expanding the scope of the death penalty: new laws passed in 2011 provide for the death penalty for those who are convicted of terrorist attacks on oil and gas pipelines that result in death and, in Gujarat state, for those who are found guilty of making and selling illicit liquor.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The list of crimes that attract the death penalty in India now also includes honour killing and, more recently, rape that leads to death, but campaigners against violence against women in India have not been impressed by those additions, because they do not provide the protection that vulnerable women need but are a reaction by the Government to the horrific violence meted out to a young woman on a bus in Delhi recently.

[John McDonnell]

That is the specific point I was about to make. We all abhor and condemn that appalling crime, but it should not be used as an excuse to implement the death penalty.

The manner in which the Indian authorities have dealt with executions has also raised concern across the human rights community. The two recent executions were announced to the public after being carried out, which violates all international standards on the use of the death penalty and makes timely interventions and final appeals before execution almost impossible.

Amnesty International points out that the use of the death penalty in India is “riddled with systemic flaws”. According to the briefing Amnesty International provided to Members for this debate, of particular concern under anti-terror legislation is the broad definition of terrorist acts for which the death penalty can be imposed. In addition, there are: insufficient safeguards on arrest; provisions that allow confessions made to the police to be admissible as evidence; obstacles to confidential communication with counsel; insufficient independence of special courts from Executive power; insufficient safeguards for the presumption of innocence; provisions for discretionary closed trials; sweeping provisions to keep secret the identity of witnesses; and limits on the right to review by a higher tribunal.

In its briefing, Amnesty succinctly sums up why we abhor the death penalty and urges India to join those nations that have rejected its use, stating eloquently that the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights. It is arbitrary, discriminatory and can be inflicted upon the innocent. I would add that all the international evidence demonstrates that it is also ineffective as a deterrent to crime and can often result in terrible, irreversible miscarriages of justice. For all those reasons and as a friend of India—someone who has close family ties and community links with India—I urge the Indian Government to join now that community of nations that have renounced the use of the death penalty and have abolished it once and for all.

I hope today that we can speak with one voice on this issue. By doing so, we may be able to impress better on India the need for change. So many MPs have supported the campaign not only because of their own personal conviction, but because they are reflecting the views put to them by many of their constituents. Somebody from the media argued that the reason so many MPs support the debate is they have Punjabi and Sikh constituents. Well, that is undoubtedly true. MPs are simply doing their job in representing their constituents’ views—that is what we are elected to do. It is also worth understanding why so many Punjabis and Sikhs have made representations to us. First, there is of course a real fear on their part that a number of their compatriots could be executed, and on humanitarian grounds they wish to prevent that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others on securing this debate. I am proud to speak in it as the Member of Parliament who probably represents more members of the Sikh community than any of my colleagues.

Earlier today, a couple of hours ago, when I complained about Slough’s rail service to London, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), suggested that I had not made similar complaints under the last Government. He was wrong. I have been making this complaint for 15 years. I mention this because I think that his cynical attitude to politics is absolutely the opposite attitude to that of those people who have promoted the Kesri Lehar petition and have encouraged us to debate this issue here in Parliament. They believe that we can make a difference; they believe that Members of Parliament uniting across the parties can play a role in persuading the Indian Government to change their mind.

I know that representatives of the Indian Government will feel tempted to fall back into the lazy assumption—cynically, like the rail Minister—of saying “Oh, this is a former colonial power, so it would say that, wouldn’t it?” From listening to this debate, it is clear that we have been able to demonstrate that what we are saying is not just an expression of a left-over bit of British colonialism, telling India what to do, but an expression of something that every democratically elected member of any Parliament in the world has a responsibility to do—tell other countries not how to run their affairs, but how to uphold basic international human rights standards. That is what we are doing here, and it is great to hear so many powerful and passionate speeches doing precisely that.

As we have heard, the move towards the abolition of the death penalty has become stronger and stronger. Of those countries that still retain it on their statute books, 35 do not in fact use the death penalty. That is what some of us thought India was moving towards. Following the rarest of the rare pronouncements at the beginning of the ’80s and following the moratorium, we thought India would be in that group of countries and would start the journey towards abolition. We thought that until the more recent executions of Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru over the last two years.

We have also heard today about the cases of Balwant Singh Rajoana and Professor Bhullar. Those cases move great passions among people, and there is a great deal of concern about them. The case of Professor Bhullar is particularly concerning because the German authorities did what Britain does, has always done and, I hope, will continue to do, although the Minister was not absolutely clear about it in his remarks. By that, I mean ensuring that if someone faces extradition to a country that retains the death penalty, there is an absolute commitment not to using it in that case.

[Mr Swire]

I hesitate to state again what I said earlier, particularly when the hon. Lady has been a Minister in the Home Office and should be aware of it, but it is absolutely the case that for a requested extradition to a country that uses a death penalty, our policy is to seek assurances that that penalty will not be implemented. As I said, if such assurances are not forthcoming, Ministers have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether extradition should nevertheless take place.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am sure that the last sentence is absolutely right. In my experience, Ministers have decided not to proceed in every case, and I hope that this Government will continue that tradition of decision. I referred to this matter because Germany decided in that way.

[Richard Fuller]

If I may say so to the hon. Lady, this is precisely the point. If we wish to decide on a case-by-case basis, as the Minister rightly said, and if India goes down this current route, it will necessarily complicate our relationship with India. There will be consequences for our relationships with India unless the Indian Parliament looks at this issue very seriously again and makes the changes that Members are asking it to do.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I also wanted to make the point that Germany got that commitment, yet we know that that commitment is at risk of not being fulfilled in this case. That is something I am very concerned about. We must keep pressing on the principled issue, which is that international human rights standards are not things that can be conveniently negotiated, as they are standards that we need to be at the forefront of upholding.

Speaking as someone who has campaigned strongly on issues relating to violence against women and has asked for more effective prosecution of such cases, tougher sentences and so forth, I strongly feel that India’s response to the horrific case in Delhi has been a failure of understanding. The Government have wanted to look tough—traditionally part of the problem with the death penalty is that it makes Governments look tough—but have not brought along people who can make a real difference. I am particularly concerned that under the proposed new law, the present exemption for marital rape, whereby it is not an offence in India, is being retained. I am diverting from the real subject at issue, however, which is the use of the death penalty in India.

As I think everybody has said, every speaker in this debate regards themselves as a friend of India. Speaking as friends of India, we want the country to be able to fulfil its enormous and growing potential in the world. One thing that makes that less possible is the existence of the death penalty. We are concerned not just about it continuing, but about the way in which its deployment helps to divide communities in India, making the country less safe and less stable.

I am worried that the rights of religious, ethnic and caste minorities in India are not sufficiently well protected. The people who sent us the briefings have brought that issue to the debate because of their sense that the death penalty is being used to target dissidents or campaigners for those minorities. People like Professor Bhullar who have exposed some of these cases are being punished, as it were, pour encourager les autres.

It seems to me that we have a responsibility to say to India, “We expect you, as the largest democracy in the world, to promote the standards of democracy and human rights that we expect, and to recognise that if the death penalty is used in this way, there is a risk that you will deepen the divisions between ethnic and religious communities in country. There is a risk that you will make your country less safe and less peaceful for all who live in it.”

I believe that if India were to commit itself to abolition of the death penalty, it would build its capacity to fulfil its potential as a leader in the south for the developing world. Its economy is growing, and I think that if its reputation for respect for democracy and human rights grew at the same pace, it would play a great role in making the world safer. In respecting the rights of its Sikh, Christian, Dalit, Muslim and other residents, it would become stronger. It is in India’s interests, as well as the world’s interests, for the motion to succeed.