European Union Referendum Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

Conduct regulations, etc

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 48, in page 2, line 30, at end insert—

‘(aa) the provision made under subsection (1)(a) shall include making arrangements to allow all those entitled to vote in the referendum to vote by electronic means.”

The amendment would provide for electronic voting in the referendum.

[The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 3, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The referendum shall not be held on the same day as:

(a) elections to the Scottish Parliament;

(b) elections to the National Assembly for Wales;

(c) elections for the Mayor of London; or

(d) local authority elections”.

The amendment would prevent the referendum being held on the same day as Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, London mayoral or local authority elections.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The referendum shall not be held on the same day as elections, other than by-elections, that are scheduled to take place for:

(a) the Scottish Parliament;

(b) the National Assembly for Wales;

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly;

(d) the Gibraltar Parliament;

(e) Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales;

(f) the London Assembly and Mayor of London; or

(g) local authorities and mayors in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar.”

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the referendum is not held on the same day as other polls.

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 3, line 37, at end add—

‘(5) Regulations made under this Act or the 2000 Act in respect of the referendum must be made and come into force not less than six months before the start of the referendum period.”

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the legislative framework for the referendum is clear at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with.

Clause 6 stand part.

Clauses 7 to 11 stand part.

[John McDonnell]

Given the limited time available, I will be brief. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak on the other amendments. I just want to warn the Committee that on subsequent occasions I will bore Members by going on about electronic voting as often as I can. We have been waging a campaign for 15 years to see whether we can update our electoral methods and bring them into the 21st century. For brevity’s sake, I will circulate the notes prepared by the Library for those Members who are interested. I want to thank Isobel White, the researcher, for preparing the notes, which go through the history of electronic voting, including the various pilots that we have undertaken since 2000.

We started the adventure way back in 2000, when we established the first pilots, and we had more in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007. At each stage we had reports back on the enhancements that electronic voting would bring to our procedures. The background to the attempt to introduce electronic voting is the declining turnout in elections, although the key issue is whether the subject of an election excites the general public, such as in the Scottish referendum. If people feel the issue is important enough, they will turn out and vote, but unfortunately they do not have the same incentive in some elections. Part of the issue, therefore, is ensuring that voting is as easy as it can be, and we have been piloting electronic voting for a long time.

The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy has explored the issue in the last two years and made several recommendations. The remaining issue to be confronted is the security of online voting, but I do not believe it to be an insuperable problem. The reason for raising the issue in the debate on the Bill—as I will for every other Bill that we consider, including the trade union Bill we are expecting—is to ensure that we force the Government to resolve the issue of security, which seems to be the only thing holding this back.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

This is possibly the first time in 18 years that I have had a slight disagreement with one of my hon. Friends, but my hon. Friend suggests that changing the way we vote will increase turnout. We introduced postal ballots for that reason and we have still seen a big decline in turnout. People do not vote if they see less difference between the parties: if there is a real difference and they have a real choice, they turn out to vote.

[John McDonnell]

Thank goodness, we are not disagreeing. That is the point that I tried to make earlier, but in a more complicated fashion. The issue about turnout is how people are incentivised to vote, but the minimum we can do is increase the access to voting procedures. We have done that through postal voting, as my hon. Friend says, and we have just introduced electronic registration, to assist in the registration process. It was argued that once we had introduced electronic registration we would revisit online voting, but unfortunately that is not the case in this legislation. I hope that the tabling of the amendment will make the Government go back to the Electoral Commission and ask it to make detailed proposals. Even if we have to pilot electronic voting in some areas in this referendum, we may be able to overcome some of the problems that have been identified.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Not for the first time, the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) speaks good sense, but I fear that the hon. Gentleman has neglected to answer his point, which is that since the advent of postal votes on demand, there has been no demonstrable increase in voter turnout. Indeed, voter turnout since 1997 generally has gone down. Will he address that point?

[John McDonnell]

There was a slight increase at the last general election. The hon. Gentleman is right, because I can remember turnouts at around 77%. In some areas we went down to 56%, but this time round we went from 60% up to about 65%, so there was a slight increase—a significant increase in some areas—from the introduction of postal voting. If he looks, he will see that where the pilots that were undertaken throughout the 2000s were implemented effectively, turnout was increased significantly. I recommend examination and exploration of the Shrewsbury pilot, which took place in 2005.

I will not delay the Committee any further, but I refer Members not just to the findings of the Electoral Commission, but to the statement by Jenny Watson, chair of the Electoral Commission, that it would return to this issue as its main feature of work in the coming period and report in due course. Again, the Electoral Commission’s argument is simply about bringing our electoral system into line with practices in the rest of society, which is now largely online, and facilitating democracy by the use of online voting in that way. I also refer Members to the executive summary of the report undertaken by WebRoots Democracy—I will circulate it rather than delay the debate—which identifies the ability of online voting not only to increase turnout, but to reduce the cost of balloting procedures.

I raise this issue briefly on an amendment because it is something we need to return to rather than neglect; it has been neglected over the last few years. It is something that many Members will want to explore in a way that facilitates the improvement of democratic processes in our society, but I also give this warning: I will be raising this matter time and again. I mentioned the trade union Bill. We will be tabling amendments to such Bills to ensure that we establish the principle that this House will facilitate access to democracy on every occasion we can. Electronic voting is one mechanism through which we can enhance our society’s democratic processes.

[Mr McFadden]

I would like to talk to amendment 3, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. Friends. On Tuesday, the Committee agreed amendment 55, which ruled out the possibility of holding the referendum in May next year, when there are other important elections taking place throughout the country. However, amendment 55 did not deal with the potential for a poll held in May 2017 to clash with local elections, which are scheduled in both England and Scotland, and the mayoral elections taking place in some places. Our amendment 3 deals with that, because it would rule out holding the referendum on the same day as local elections, as well as the other elections that are listed in the amendment.

There are two separate reasons why we believe the referendum should be held on a separate day. The first is that a referendum on such a large constitutional issue deserves its own campaign and its own moment of decision. The focus in a competitive election when parties are battling to control a local council or another elected body is different from that in an election on a yes/no constitutional question of this kind. The focus in a local election battle should be on who will run the body that is up for election. In a referendum, the focus is different. Views on the European referendum will cross party lines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

One thing about the European referendum campaign, which I think the public will expect, is that people from both the hon. Gentleman’s party and mine will be campaigning in both the yes and no camps. Both parties are broad churches and we accept that that is a reality. I do not think the British public are incapable of understanding that the European question is one that cuts across normal party political boundaries.

I wish to move on to deal with the amendment on electronic voting tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. I do not want to cause him too great a shock in saying that I am not wholly unsympathetic to some of the points he makes. I have been to Estonia and talked to Estonian Ministers about what they have put in place, not only on electronic voting, but in delivering almost all interaction between citizen and government through digital means. Given current advances in IT, I can see how e-voting sounds attractive, but we would have to consider a number of issues carefully and thoroughly before this country committed itself to going down that path.

Most obviously, there are genuine concerns that e-voting is not sufficiently rigorous and could be vulnerable to attack or fraud. The last thing that would serve the interests of Parliament or of democracy in this country would be for us to move swiftly to a system of electronic voting that led to still greater public mistrust in the integrity of our democratic process. Particularly when selecting elected representatives or deciding an issue of national importance in a referendum, it is essential that we have the highest possible security, and I am not convinced that we have the requisite assurance yet. Even in the short exchanges that have taken place on this subject, different views have been expressed about whether or not the pilots in the past have led to a serious increase in turnout. That is another point to be borne in mind.

[John McDonnell]

Even the Conservative elements of the campaign group have been a problem, too. May I suggest something to the Minister? This referendum will be in two years’ time, the Electoral Commission is focusing its work this year on electronic voting and we will have elections before then. Can we look again at reviving some of the pilots, at least for next year’s local government elections, so that we can learn the lessons and overcome the security issue, which he rightly mentions? Things have moved on from the last pilots and we need a new pilot to give us the confidence that we can then use e-voting more extensively in referendums.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend’s amendment proposes that the legislation be put in place at least six months before it is required to be implemented or complied with by campaigners or administrators. Although it is not necessary or appropriate in this specific case to set an arbitrary timeframe in statute, I can offer him some reassurance on the point. The reason for the Electoral Commission’s recommendation, to which he alluded, is that it is important to ensure that the people who are responsible for organising and administering a referendum and the people who will be responsible for accounting for expenditure on behalf of campaign organisations are clear about the rules that apply. To some extent, as I said a few minutes ago, the general framework of those rules is set out in the body of the Bill. The more detailed rules on conduct will be provided for by regulations that the Government will have the power, under the Bill, to table.

I can assure the Committee that it is the Government’s intention to publish the conduct regulations this autumn. That will mean, especially given the decision that the Committee took on Tuesday not to combine the referendum with the devolved local elections in May 2016, that there should be plenty of time for the Electoral Commission, and returning and counting officers and campaigners to familiarise themselves with the detail of the rules under which the referendum will be conducted. We would expect those detailed rules to cover such matters as the referendum timetable and the key stages within that; the provision of polling stations; the appointment of polling and counting agents; the procedure for the issue of ballot papers and for voting at polling stations; the arrangements for the counting of votes and declaration of results; the disposal of ballot papers and other referendum documents; arrangements for absent voters and postal and proxy votes and so on.

There will be a great deal of information, which it is our intention to have publicly available for everybody to see in the autumn of this year, well ahead of the referendum date. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and others who have signed his amendment will be reassured that the Government are fully committed to our declared intention of ensuring that the referendum is conducted in an way that is not only fair but that is seen to be and is accepted as fair by everybody who takes part on both sides.

[John McDonnell]

I am not convinced that the Government are taking the matter of electronic voting seriously, but I welcome the warm words from the Minister that there could be some movement in the future. Although we might not be able to achieve it for this referendum, I hope that we can encourage the Electoral Commission to undertake pilots again next year that might resolve some of the issues with security. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

‘(2) The referendum shall not be held on the same day as:

(a) elections to the Scottish Parliament;

(b) elections to the National Assembly for Wales;

(c) elections for the Mayor of London; or

(d) local authority elections”. —(Mr McFadden.)

The amendment would prevent the referendum being held on the same day as Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, London mayoral or local authority elections.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Shaker Aamer

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House calls on the US Government to release Shaker Aamer from his imprisonment in Guantánamo Bay and to allow him to return to his family in the UK.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this critical debate at an important time in the campaign to secure the release of Shaker Aamer. By way of introduction, I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so hard over many years to bring Shaker Aamer’s case to our attention. I pay tribute to the “Save Shaker Aamer” campaign, and all those campaigners who have stood in Parliament Square month after month protesting in their orange boiler suits with their placards until someone began to listen to them. I pay tribute to the “We Stand with Shaker” campaign, to Shaker’s family who have joined us today and to the organisations Reprieve and Amnesty International. I pay tribute, too, to the full range of newspapers that have supported this campaign. They range right across the political spectrum of journalism from the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph to The Guardian and the Morning Star. In addition, I pay tribute to all the celebrities, actors, artists and sportspeople who have got behind this campaign. Finally, I thank the many hon. Members from all sides of the House who joined the all-party parliamentary group, which now has more than 40 members drawn from all political parties.

Why have so many people campaigned so long and so steadfastly on this case? I think that it is because the Shaker Aamer case is one of the worst examples of a miscarriage of justice during the past three decades at least. Shaker’s treatment offends against all the principles of a civilised society—justice, freedom, human rights and the rights of a family to be together. We have had several debates here and numerous questions about his case have been raised. The last occasion on which I raised the issue was at the Christmas recess debate.

Let me put on record the history of Shaker’s case, so that people are fully aware of the background to what happened to him and the various issues that we need to address now. Shaker was born in Saudi Arabia in 1968. He left home and lived in America for a while, eventually making his home in the United Kingdom. He married a British citizen and was granted leave to remain in this country in 1996. He worked as a translator for a firm of solicitors.

In 2001, he went with his family to Afghanistan, working as a charity volunteer building a girls’ school and digging water wells. After 9/11 when Afghanistan was bombed by the US, he sent his family to safety in Pakistan. Before he could join them, however, the Afghan villagers gave him up to the Northern Alliance. At that time, the US was offering a ransom to individuals, and unfortunately the Northern Alliance and others rounded people up without any evidence of their involvement in terrorist activity. What then happened was that Shaker was taken and held in the notorious Bagram jail.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I am not necessarily sympathetic if there is any question of guilt on the part of the people picked up. However, what strikes me about this case is that the US was offering $5,000 ransoms or rewards, and it is too easy to forget that in Afghanistan at that time, $5,000 would have been equivalent to hundreds of thousands of pounds in this country. When it was a poor village that handed him over, I will not say that I do not blame them—I do—but it could be seen as understandable. What that does, however, is to call into extreme question any suggestion of Shaker Aamer’s guilt.

[John McDonnell]

It looks as though the ransom or reward turned the rounding up of individuals, particularly by the Northern Alliance and others, almost into a trade during that period, and it is easy to see how injustices have resulted.

According to Reprieve, which has been analysing what has been happening in Bagram and elsewhere, while detained in Bagram, Shaker was

“forced to stay awake for nine days straight and denied food. Doused in freezing water, he was made to stand in the Afghan winter on concrete for 16 hours. His feet were beaten and he was bound in torturous positions.”

After Bagram, in 2002, Shaker was among the first to be sent to Guantanamo Bay, where we know that he has endured harsh, brutal and inhuman treatment. That has been exposed by the United States authorities themselves. The CIA’s own torture memos of what happened in Guantanamo—which was authorised, unfortunately—describe

“Enhanced Interrogation Techniques endorsed by Dick Cheney for use in Guantanamo, including, yelling, slapping, stress positions, extremes of heat and cold, constant bright lights, permanent noise and constantly repeated music, food, sleep and sensory deprivation, long periods of total solitary confinement, removal of facial hair, removal of blanket, clothes, toothbrush…forced nudity, and forced feeding, sexual assault, water-boarding and suffocation in a narrow box, prolonged shackling of hands and feet, threats to family, exposure to dogs, insects etc., denial of exercise or daylight.”

We know from the prisoners who have been released so far that that is exactly what Shaker has experienced while being held in Guantanamo Bay. We also know from evidence provided by the United States guards themselves about the performance of those tortures.

Shaker has never been charged with any crime. He has been cleared for release twice but continues to be detained in Guantanamo, while many others have been released, including all the Britons and British residents. Over the past 12 months, 33 prisoners have been released in difficult circumstances. They have been released to host countries from Uruguay to Kazakhstan, which has obviously involved fairly complicated arrangements. It is hard to understand why the United States finds a transfer to the United Kingdom almost impossible; it is extraordinary that David Hicks, who had admitted to terrorist activity, was released to Australia in February, but the United States refuses to release Shaker, who has never been charged and has been cleared for release twice.

Why is Shaker still being detained? That is the question that we are all asking. Why can he not be allowed to come home to his family? We can only speculate. Is it because he knows too much about what happened in Guantanamo Bay and will ensure that the truth comes out if he is released? Is it because he was a spokesperson for the prisoners in Guantanamo when he was setting up the prisoners’ council? Is this part of some vindictive victimisation? Or is it because he can bear witness to the involvement of not just United States but, possibly, British intelligence in the illegal, criminal torture that went on in Bagram, Kandahar and Guantanamo?

The United Kingdom Government have made representations—I thank successive Foreign Secretaries, the Prime Minister and other Ministers for that—but unfortunately, those representations have been to no avail. Shaker’s Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who has worked assiduously on his behalf, cannot participate in such debates because of her ministerial position, but she can testify to the representations that the United Kingdom Government have made to the United States Government over the years.

In January, the Prime Minister visited Washington and raised Shaker’s case again with President Obama. The President gave an assurance that the case would be prioritised, but we now know from a recent statement by the United States Defence Secretary that no proposal for release—certainly, no proposal for Shaker’s release—has landed on his desk We also know that there have been discussions within the United States Administration, and possibly with United Kingdom officials previously, about deporting Shaker to Saudi Arabia, where his safety and human rights would certainly be at risk.

There are questions to which I would welcome the Minister’s response. Will he update the House on what further representations have been made by the UK Government to the US Government since January 2015 when the Prime Minister had the meeting with President Obama? What is the Government’s understanding of what continues to block Shaker’s release? It is very difficult to fathom why Shaker has still not been released when the closest ally of the US has made representations and a formal request and when the President of the US has said that the case will be prioritised. It is beyond credibility. Have any grounds or reasons been given for his continued detention? What assurances have the Government been given that Shaker will not be transferred to Saudi Arabia? If possible, will the Minister tell us the next steps that the UK Government plan to take to secure Shaker’s release? Will the UK Government press the US Administration, particularly the President, for a clear timetable for Shaker’s release?

In due course, we will need a full and thorough independent inquiry into Shaker’s evidence about British intelligence collusion. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that proposal. However, the most important thing for us now is to bring Shaker home. As I have said, many words have been spoken by Ministers, Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and now even the President about the release of Shaker, but there has been no action. Now is the time for action, not words. That is why we have secured the debate.

Shaker’s release has now become urgent. As a result of more than a decade of detention and barbaric treatment, including extensive torture, his health has deteriorated significantly. A recent medical assessment by Dr Emily Keram states that Shaker suffers from serious ailments, including migraines, asthma, urinary retention, ear and skin problems and extreme post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his imprisonment in Guantanamo.

I hope that today’s motion will be supported by everyone. It is very straightforward and states:

“That this House calls on the US Government to release Shaker Aamer from his imprisonment in Guantánamo Bay and to allow him to return to his family in the UK.”

The cross-party group of MPs and Lords supporting Shaker’s campaign for release numbers more than 40 and includes many senior Members of this House and ex-Ministers. It is a sizeable and active group, and we will send a delegation shortly to Washington to meet officials from the Administration over there to press for the release of Shaker. The UK Government can give us help and give this campaign significant support and momentum. I appeal to Members to pass the motion today; let us send a clear and unanimous message to the US President that we want Shaker released and returned to his family.

Shaker’s family members, in particular his sons, have joined us in Parliament today. I want us all to say to them now that we pledge that we will not rest until their father is free and back in the arms of his family.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I am grateful to the Minister for his last statement. I will deal briefly with three issues raised by the debate.

First, we now know that Shaker Aamer is in the process of a review. We welcome that, but the problem is that we are still not clear about the evidence presented against him, because intelligence is not being shared. As far as I am concerned, the concept of intelligence is yet again being used as an excuse to cover up injustice. We are not sure about the review’s timetable or the criteria on which it will make its decision, so although I welcome the Minister’s saying that a review is taking place, unfortunately the process does not give us confidence.

Secondly, I welcome wholeheartedly the Minister’s saying that the UK Government’s representations will continue, but he must take note of the sense of this House and those representations must be determined and courageous. We need to say frankly to our allies in America, “This man must be released.”

Thirdly, a number of Members have raised the issue of access. We need to ensure that Shaker Aamer’s health is assessed and properly dealt with and that he secures the full legal representation he requires. The Minister has said that we are restricted in the consular support we can provide because he is not a British national. Actually, he received the right to indefinite leave in this country, and if it were up to me I would offer him full British citizenship in order to overcome the issue of overall access.

Finally, someone said that this has not been a particularly well attended debate, but the attendance has been good for this type of debate. It has been well attended by senior Members, ex-Ministers and others with a human rights background, so I am really grateful for that and I know that the campaigners and the family will be, too. Let us all say together, in support of the motion, to the family, friends and campaigners, that we will not go away and we will secure the freedom of Shaker Aamer.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House calls on the US Government to release Shaker Aamer from his imprisonment in Guantánamo Bay and to allow him to return to his family in the UK.

Tamil People in Sri Lanka

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for their dogged pursuit of this issue over the years. I am also grateful for their work in the all-party group on Tamils.

The reality is that we have been here too many times. There have been too many of these debates, to be frank, and limited movement. We were here when the last onslaught on the Tamil community took place and 40,000 people died. We were here when, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, the disappearances started in earnest, and also when the ethnic cleansing of the Tamil areas started.

There has been some movement. The establishment of the OHCHR investigation was a significant breakthrough. Let us congratulate people on their contribution. The UK Government made a significant contribution to enabling that to happen, as did our current Prime Minister. I am grateful for that. Rajapaksa’s losing the election was also a significant advance. It was a brutal regime and if there is an investigation, he will have a lot to answer for. He may well come before the International Criminal Court at some stage.

All the speakers so far have treated the election of President Sirisena with some caution, and I agree that we cannot get carried away. He has at least acknowledged that crimes took place under the state and that there is an issue that needs to be investigated. However, the non-co-operation with the international investigation is, for me, the key issue. There has been the offer of a domestic inquiry, but to be frank, many see that as just a diversionary process. It is impossible to see how it can be regarded as independent and effective or how it can secure the confidence of the Tamil people in particular, but also the international community. That is why the real question today is how we can secure the new President’s co-operation with the international investigation.

This was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, but I want to come to it more straightforwardly. I believe that our best weapon for securing that co-operation is our economic influence. Nothing has worked until we have threatened the withdrawal of economic co-operation. Some 36% of Sri Lanka’s exports go to the EU. That is worth €3.5 billion. Sri Lanka has a trade surplus with the EU of €1.1 billion. It is given preferential treatment by the EU and is part of the generalised scheme of preferences, which allows it to pay no or very little duty.

For those reasons, I believe that the UK, within the EU, has immense influence. We should set a deadline for the new President to co-operate with the international investigation; if agreement is not reached by that deadline, we should place on the agenda discussion within the EU of the withdrawal of Sri Lanka’s status in the general preferential agreement. I do not say that lightly, because no one wants to inflict economic harm on another population. At the same time, I do not see any other way in which we can secure co-operation. The inquiry may lay the foundation stones for the future that we all want to see in Sri Lanka—one of peace and justice for the entire population.

The investigation is central, but I reiterate my support for the issues that others have raised: the need for an end to detention without due process, an end to the ethnic cleansing of Tamil areas, an end to the harassment of the Tamil population and an end to the use of sexual crime against women, which has been so prevalent in recent times. The international investigation should be part of the reconciliation process, which involves moving towards a general, agreed constitutional settlement that recognises the rights of the Tamil people, trying to bring back normality to Tamil areas and implementing the demilitarisation that has been called for.

Our message for President Sirisena is that we want to work with him in co-operation. However, unless a deadline is set for such co-operation, particularly with the UN investigation, I believe that we should seriously consider sanctions. In our role as UK parliamentarians, we should send a message to the President that we are not going away, and that we will continue our search for peace and justice using whatever parliamentary mechanisms and influence we have.

Palestine

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you, Mr Pritchard. On applying pressure to move things towards a negotiated settlement, trade is rather asymmetrical and there are strong arguments to support it as a legitimate tactic for bringing about negotiations, because the obstacle seems to be that the Israelis achieve their ends through the status quo and have no interest in pursuing a peaceful solution.

There was a tremendous outpouring of emotion from the British public this summer. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in protest, not just in London, where there were huge demonstrations with more than 100,000 people, and where 50,000 protested outside the Israeli embassy, but all across the great cities of the north, in my region, and in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as in smaller towns and villages. The protests did not come from the Palestinian diaspora; they came from people with a burning sense of injustice at the completely disproportionate actions of the Israeli Government in relation to Gaza, and people who had seen some of the horrors perpetrated against Gaza. They showed the strength of feeling among the UK population. It behoves the Government to do something about the issue.

In such circumstances, I believe that all arms export licences should be suspended. Moreover, given Israel’s record of violating international law, the arms trade with Israel should be completely banned in both directions. The UK and the European Union have some of the world’s strictest rules in place for controlling the export of arms and components. Considering that Israel already has a history of using UK-supplied arms in the occupied territories, including Gaza, in breach of those rules, there is no excuse for the rules not being enforced. The UK’s relationship with Israel may have been profitable for arms companies, but it has had a devastating impact on the people of Gaza, which at the current rate of progress will not be rebuilt for many decades.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that I will be intervening and then leaving; ironically, I am going to a sitting of the Select Committee on Justice. Is it not true that any country currently allowing the arms trade with Israel is complicit in the crimes that Israel is committing against the people of Palestine?

[Grahame M. Morris]

We need to search our conscience and consider how those arms and components have been put to use, and ask ourselves whether that complies with British policies and our sense of decency, if we are to be consistent in how we approach our dealings with Israel and other countries. In my view, if we fail to set clear parameters, targets and consequences, including economic sanctions, for failures to end violations and make progress on the peace process, we are perpetuating the conflict.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I apologise profusely for being out of the debate for most of the afternoon. I heard the speeches by the Front Benchers and then I had to attend a meeting at the Home Office about the data retention Bill.

I wish to discuss the issues that have been brought to my attention by my constituents. I will try not to repeat the points that I have heard. All sides of the argument have been eloquently made. I want to focus on Syria and Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has been in the House longer than me, but I have been here for 17 years, and on each occasion that we have discussed intervening in another country, there has been early consideration of the legality of such a move. I remember the discussions that we had on Iraq, and the elaboration of the just war theory, which comes all the way down from Thomas Aquinas.

Under the just war theory, before we enter into military action of any sort, particularly in another country, there has to be just cause, appropriate legal authority, proportionality, and the action should be taken in the last resort. Those are just some elements of the just war theory. I am anxious that we are taking the next step towards military intervention in Iraq and Syria without full cognisance of our legal position. Is there a just cause for an intervention at this stage by this state—the United Kingdom—when there are other parties that could be acting?

With regard to legal authority, I hope that whatever action we take we commit ourselves to ensuring that it is done through the United Nations with an appropriate resolution. No action should be taken unless there is the appropriate resolution. That was the problem with Iraq that caused such division both in our community and throughout the world.

I am concerned that we seem to be rushing fairly quickly to an extensive bombing campaign. No bombing campaign is based on precision bombing. We have seen that time and again, in every intervention in the past century. Proportionality was introduced to protect civilians but, in the bombing campaigns we have waged in recent years, there has been no protection of civilians.

That leads us to the question of who should undertake action if action is taken. There is an excellent article by Sunny Hundal on the Labour List website—I mention that because it contains many of my own thoughts and I do not want him to accuse me of plagiarism. UK engagement is exactly what ISIS wants. It wants the US, the UK and other western countries to invade Iraq and kill civilians, because that would unite radical Sunni elements in the middle east against such intervention. Sunny’s second point, which I fully agree with, is that ISIS would want to ally us with Assad, or even elements of the Assad regime if he goes. That, too, would unite radical Islamist forces against the west. As Sunny points out, ISIS would want the symbolism of the UK linking up with the US yet again to invade or threaten to take military against a Muslim country. I fear that UK involvement will mean that we have fallen into the trap that ISIS has set us.

If in accordance with just war theory there is a sound reason or a just cause for intervention, if it is the last resort and if it is a humanitarian intervention, I plead that the UK is not part of it. I agree with other hon. Members that other states in the region have a responsibility to act. They also have the resources to act. They have the military resources because we have sold them those resources. In recent years, Europe has sold Qatar €200 million-worth of military hardware. We have sold Jordan €34 million-worth of military hardware. Saudi Arabia has had €2,264 million in military exports.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is my Friend aware that Saudi Arabia has possibly the worst human rights record in the region? It is unclear where many of the weapons that are sold to Saudi Arabia end up.

[John McDonnell]

The whole argument was that the weapons were sold to Saudi Arabia so that they could be used in its defence, and to ensure that in the region it has a military presence that can effect the suppression of violence and the maintenance of peace. We have sold those weapons to those states, and it is now their responsibility to intervene on a humanitarian basis if necessary within the region. I agree that bombs usually do nothing more than elicit more violence; my hon. Friend has made that point in the past. Therefore, we should ensure that we supply humanitarian aid to the region.

Like other hon. Members, I was lobbied all summer on Gaza. We had a meeting of 200 people in my constituency, which mobilised with the 100,000 on the demonstration. People tell me that British citizens fight not just in the Palestinian cause and elsewhere in the middle east, but for the Israel defence force. I would like to know from the Home Secretary what action will be taken with regard to their passports, and what action will be taken against them when they seek to return to this country.

Hazaras (Afghanistan and Pakistan)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Like everybody else in the Commons today, I knew nothing about Hazaras until a small group of my constituents turned up in my constituency office and took me through their experience, which was horrendous. The group travelled as pilgrims and on the coach they were divided on ethnic lines, taken off, and a number of them murdered on the spot. That was just one experience. When I witnessed the photographs and the reports, I felt, like everyone else, lacking because I did not know about this and a sense of a sin of omission in not doing anything about it.

The other thing that came up in the discussions with the group was their anxiety that the perpetrators of this violence against them, particularly in Pakistan, were operating with virtual impunity, with no action taken against them or only tokenistic arrests. Then there was the bizarre element that some of those who had been arrested were allowed to escape, with clear collusion on the part of the authorities.

I told my constituents that I would do everything I possibly could to support the all-party group—I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on establishing it—and also to look at how we systematically approach this issue so that we have a method of working in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, we bring attention to it and do not allow it ever to be dropped again.

I want to thank Baroness Warsi for the work she did and the commitment she undertook on this issue, but may I make a suggestion to the Minister? I know he has offered to meet the all-party group, but a systematic report from Government on how we are going to approach this issue on a whole range of levels would be helpful.

Obviously, there is an element of carrot and stick. In terms of positive assistance through DFID, there is a question as to how we target resources on the Hazara community in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and what support we can concretely give them, because they are suffering economically as a result of the oppression they are facing. The second point is to do with the conflict pool and conflict prevention and resolution. We have looked at proposals in other areas where we support Human Rights Watch and other human rights organisations to put people on the ground, including supporting the Hazaras with the legal representation they need on individual cases.

Thirdly, there is an element of stick. As has been said, Pakistan receives a significant amount of aid from this country. It is also a significant trading partner with us. All of those trading agreements now have a commitment to human rights embodied in them, but that is not being fulfilled. We must explain to the Pakistani Government in particular that if they want this relationship with us, they have to start delivering by addressing human rights abuses in this particular instance, and we should invite them to bring forward their programme of work for tackling this disgraceful abuse of the Hazaras.

I want the Minister to meet the all-party group, but also to prepare a systematic report on how we can bring forward this issue so that we can protect this community.

Iraq and Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The point that my hon. Friend raises is exactly why I have stressed several times that although it is right to engage Iran, which we are doing, we need to see a change in Iranian policies if the Iranians are to promote stability rather than instability in the region. They do support sectarian or terrorist groups and have supported them elsewhere in the region. That is an important policy to change because it creates deep divisions across the middle east, and I again stress that we look to Iran to change those policies.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary has said on several occasions that the Government are not planning any military intervention. Can I be absolutely assured that there will be no military intervention by this Government, or support by this Government for others’ military intervention, without a vote of this House?

On the second part of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, with regard to sexual violence, will he look at reports that women who have come to this country seeking asylum from areas of conflict have been detained in Yarl’s Wool, where they have been subjected to sexual abuse?

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman’s second point is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I will of course draw it to her attention. We have a clear precedent established about coming to the House, when circumstances permit, in relation to the use of military force. We did that over Syria, even though we were then defeated. The hon. Gentleman is trying to extend that precedent to support for other states taking military action. This House does not govern actions taken by other states. The Government will of course always come to explain our diplomatic posture on all those things.

Sri Harmandir Sahib

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

There was a remarkable prescience in my right hon. Friend’s questions to Mrs Gandhi at that time. As always, we are not in the least bit surprised to find that he knew her, and indeed knew several generations of the Gandhi family. He is right to put the matter in that historical context. The requests for British advice, however they were then responded to, should be seen in that light.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary spoke of reassurance. I do not believe that members of the Sikh community in my area will be reassured by the fact that a UK Government were willing to provide any military support to desecrate the most holy place on this earth, or by the fact that there was no semblance of an apology today. Nor do I believe they will be reassured by files going missing, or by the fact that this was an internal inquiry. May I urge him to move swiftly for a full public and independent inquiry?

[Mr Hague]

No, and I think the facts have been set out clearly by the Cabinet Secretary, a respected official and the most senior civil servant in the country, who has served Governments of all parties in a non-partisan way. These are sensitive matters, and everyone should be careful about how they phrase things. To say that the UK gave military support to desecrate the temple is obviously a wild distortion of events, and the hon. Gentleman should regret that.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I have some questions for the Minister. If he cannot answer today, I should be grateful for a response in writing.

First, what agenda of human rights issues in Sri Lanka has been prepared for the Prime Minister to raise? Does it reflect the debates in the House? Have the Government, indeed, put human rights in Sri Lanka on the agenda of the meeting? What opportunities have been identified to raise human rights abuses in Sri Lanka in the various sub-meetings, and what mechanisms have been identified for doing that?

What strategy do the Government have for raising those issues in the Commonwealth meetings following the CHOGM and what opportunities have been identified for the next 12 months? If Sri Lankan Government representatives accused of human rights abuses seek to attend meetings of Commonwealth bodies held in this country, will they be granted a visa? If anyone from the Sri Lankan Government accused of human rights abuses enters UK territory, will the Government seek to hold that person to account in law?

As has already been asked, will the Government support the call for a further UN investigation into human rights abuses with a view to seeking action by international judicial bodies to hold individuals to account? Will the Government review the policy of deporting Tamils to Sri Lanka in the light of the evidence of the arrest and torture of returnees?

Finally, I deeply regret that the Government are not following the Canadian example of refusing to attend the meeting. Initially, Canada conditionally refused to attend on the basis that there should be some improvement in human rights within Sri Lanka, and then declined to attend, as a result of the lack of improvement. I fully concur with the appeal by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I repeat that, even at this late stage, I would like the Government to think again. If the Prime Minister attends, the message will go out that Governments can kill, maim and persecute with impunity.

[Mr Swire]

May I factually correct the hon. Gentleman? He is right to say that neither Canada’s Prime Minister nor its Foreign Minister is going to Sri Lanka, but Canada will be represented at the CHOGM by a junior Minister.

[John McDonnell]

It is extremely significant that a Prime Minister has refused to attend, and we should follow that example.

Colombia

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that that causes further problems. I know that indigenous people are still having their lands taken.

The politicians, trade unionists, activists and media commentators that President Santos denounces are not terrorists, but he knows beyond doubt that it is effectively a death sentence to say that they are. Yet still he does it. Is it any wonder that I and others are sceptical?

I will turn my attention to the events of recent weeks. As a result of the west’s unending drive towards profit without conscience, the US-Colombia and EU-Colombia trade agreements have been put in place with very weak labour and human rights conditions. Trade agreements already disadvantage poor peasant farmers in Colombia, so it is not surprising that they have been protesting. It is estimated that approximately 250,000 peasant farmers have protested, despite the dangers they know they face.

How have President Santos’s Government responded in recent weeks? At least 10 people are dead, more than 800 are wounded and 512 people have been arrested, including 45 children. A curfew was imposed and 50,000 troops were put on to the streets of the country to crack down on strike action. The social movements have said that this amounts to an undeclared state of siege, with demobilised right-wing paramilitaries used to attack demonstrators. However, the peasant farmers have been joined in their protests by health workers and students. Video evidence shows horrific beatings, torture, systematic vandalism and theft of the few possessions and food owned by the peasant farmers by the police. Human rights organisations have catalogued sexual abuse, torture, degrading treatment, beatings, indiscriminate use of tear gas and rubber bullets, and intimidation. As a result of this unchecked state violence, the people of Bogota came out on to the streets in their thousands.

On 29 August, President Santos made a speech putting the blame on the protesters, and sent in the ESMAD riot police. In the same speech, he smeared the Patriotic March movement, knowing full well that it would put them in danger. This followed his public statements about the June protest in Catatumbo, which lead to four protesters being killed.

NIZKOR, a collective of high profile and respected human rights organisations in Colombia, has catalogued the appalling behaviour of the riot police. It reported that ESMAD has been acting in the Boyaca department as an occupying army that has supplanted civilian authority and committed systematic, generalised and indiscriminate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as acts of vandalism and the excessive use of force. The following are just some issues it has reported: indiscriminate shooting of police-issue weapons against the population; sexual abuse of youths by police agents, as well as repeated threats to sexually abuse women, partners and daughters of the peasants; acts of torture and other mistreatment that involve the arbitrary use of tear gas in enclosed spaces, including in nurseries with 3 to 6-year-old children inside, as well as the use of elements projected or applied to the bodies of the inhabitants; attacks against helpless youths and minors, who are taken from the demonstrations and assaulted while alone; the indiscriminate firing of tear gas from helicopters over gatherings of people; the arbitrary invasion of homes of peasants and the destruction of their property; the identification, false accusation, persecution and threatening of leaders of the agriculture strike in Boyaca; mass arbitrary arrests of demonstrators; looting, theft of money and other common crimes committed by the security forces while accompanied by the investigative police, even in the capital of the department; the occupation of institutions protected under international humanitarian law such as the Pan-American Educational Institute, the New Bolivarian school and the Paloblanco school, all in Boyaca; and the use of ambulances for the transport of members of ESMAD, the riot police, which in itself constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

It is exceptionally worrying that there has been an escalation in the targeting of human rights defenders, with 37 dying in the first six months of this year.

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is that escalation that led me to secure the debate.

On 28 August, NIZKOR reported that in addition to the previous offences it catalogued, ambulances were being prevented from going into areas where the security services had injured, and in some cases killed, inhabitants. It is worried that civilian authorities find themselves intimidated or supplanted by curfews, militarisation and the hiding of the identification of riot police and police. I welcome the negotiations that are now taking place between the strikers and the Government, but it took 21 days, many deaths and the arrest of many activists to lead to them.

Let me turn now to the arrest of the deputy president of the agricultural workers’ union. Huber Ballesteros is a prominent agricultural workers’ union leader. He is on the executive of the Colombian equivalent of the TUC, and is a leader of the peaceful, socio-political Patriotic March movement, which, as I have said, has been smeared by President Santos. In the classic, tried-and-tested method of the Colombian Government, Huber has been arrested and is in prison accused of rebellion and financing terrorism. It is the old Colombian Government trick of saying that there are incriminating e-mails on laptop computers and using non-credible witness statements, which have been discredited in previous failed cases and criticised by the UN. So-called evidence that would make a British court wince with shame is trotted out to justify this false imprisonment.

There is a certain irony in the fact that Huber should be accused of funding the FARC guerrillas, when the current Defence Secretary has previously said that FARC funded the Patriotic March. One would have thought the Colombian Government could be at least consistent in their wild accusations! In a way, I am grateful that Huber has not met the same fate as Henry Diaz, the agricultural workers’ representative I met 18 months ago in Putumayo district, whose clothes were found, symbolically, between two military checkpoints last year—disappeared and murdered for the crime of representing peasant farmers.

Huber’s reputation internationally is such that he was to be a guest at the TUC conference this week. He is widely respected by Canadian, Irish, UK and US politicians and trade unionists. Sadly, he must travel everywhere in Colombia with a team of bodyguards. Huber is now in La Picota prison. According to Mariela Kohon, the director of Justice for Colombia,

“the prison is intensely overcrowded, prisoners are routinely denied any medical attention”

at all. Indeed, in November last year, she met a prisoner in this very same prison who had literally carved off a slice from his face to remove a tumour.

I am glad to see the Minister in his place, but I have been repeatedly disappointed that successive UK Governments have seized upon the slightest crumb—real or illusory—that Colombia has turned its back on state-backed murder and oppression. Parliamentary answers show Ministers heralding the peace talks, the national protection unit, land restitution and so on as being signs of a better Colombia. We should, of course, congratulate any effort to improve the situation, but Ministers should and must dig a little deeper and judge the Government of Colombia on results, not intent—on concrete actions, not words on paper. Protecting trade unionists because the Inter-American court has ordered it, while at the same time accusing the same people of being terrorists is not coherent. Neither is returning land to peasants while murdering protesting peasants. Engaging in peace talks while intimidating peace activists is, once again, not a coherent approach. We need to see civil society more included in the peace process, and victims from all sides given a voice.

It saddens me to say that our Government have for too long too naïvely accepted the word of the Colombian Government as fact. That can be seen in their welcoming the announcement that there will be no more impunity for military personnel at exactly the time as the Colombian law granting such impunity was changed. No wonder our reputation as a bastion of human rights in the world is so poor in Colombia, particularly among those at the front line of defending human rights. It is shameful to think that the average Colombian views the British as supporters of the oppressor, not the oppressed.

Instead of accepting the sweet words of President Santos, I hope our Ministers will now take a tougher public line, call for civil society’s involvement in the peace talks, publicly reject accusations that the trade unions and the opposition are linked to the guerrillas, get our ambassador to visit Huber in his prison cell in Colombia and speak out about the oppression being doled out with impunity.

If President Santos is genuine about wanting to bring Colombia to peace, he should free Huber Ballesteros. I have received letters from the ambassador, saying that everything is being done through proper process and that the Executive cannot intervene. Well, I am afraid that history has shown otherwise—that all too often the Executive intervenes, and not in a positive way. Now we have an opportunity to intervene positively. If President Santos is genuine, he should stop denouncing anyone he disagrees with as a “terrorist”, and he should call off his slavering, rabid riot police and their accomplices in the military and police. President Santos would, I am sure, want the rest of the world to view him as a saviour of Colombia and as the man who brought peace to his country. He can do that, but not by copying Uribe—he needs to be a man of peace, not an elected dictator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Swire]

My default position on elections, wherever they are, is that there should be international observers. In my role as Commonwealth Minister and Minister with responsibility for Latin America, Asia and south-east Asia, I am constantly arguing that where there are questions of transparency, people who are respected should be invited from the international community to observe elections. If there is nothing to hide, all that does is validate the elections. So I would suggest to anyone that they invite in election observers. It is a good rule.

Colombia is an increasingly important commercial partner, offering real opportunities for British companies. We are working with UK industry and the Colombian Government to ensure that British businesses are in a strong position to win contracts. We make no apology for that at all. Unlike the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, we regard trade agreements, such as the EU-Andean free trade agreement with Colombia and Peru, as important for economic growth and prosperity in developed and developing countries. I believe that these free trade agreements will eventually benefit all the people, including those living in the most remote areas, the farmers and so on. It takes a little time and it is painful, but that is where we disagree philosophically about free trade.

The UK pushed hard for a legally binding human rights clause in the agreement, which is consistent with our policy to have a frank dialogue with Colombia and Peru on human rights. We strongly encourage British companies to respect human rights in places where they do business. That applies internationally. The UK’s action plan on business and human rights, launched by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 4 September, sends a clear message to British firms about the standards expected of them overseas. In May, we part-funded a major event in Colombia on implementing the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and we are now working with the Colombian Government as they create a national strategy of their own.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for securing today’s debate.

[John McDonnell]

Before the Minister sums up, may I ask him one specific question? On 14 September it will be the third anniversary of the imprisonment of David Ravelo Crespo. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, raise this case again, ensure that we are expressing our concern about this continued imprisonment of a human rights defender, and perhaps seek access to the prison?

[Mr Swire]

I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the Colombian ambassador here in London and ensure that our ambassador in Bogota does the same.

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South once again for securing the debate. Hon. Members have highlighted many important points and I fully recognise the concerns raised. All in the garden is not rosy. The Government are not blindly supportive of everything being done by the Government in Bogota—[Interruption.] That might be the perception, but the truth is that we are a critical friend and we believe that President Santos is doing an incredibly difficult job. The end goal, which must be a peaceful negotiation and settlement with the FARC and other groups, is something that we believe will radically transform the lives of everybody in that country, wherever and at whatever level they live.

After almost half a century of conflict, Colombia has made great strides in the last three years towards the goal of a prosperous nation free of armed conflict. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that sometimes, rather than just seeing the glass half empty. Of course there is still more to do; how could there not be, given what the country has suffered over the years? In order to achieve greater progress, Colombia must continue to address the legacy of an incredibly difficult and tragic past and tackle the myriad and difficult challenges it still faces.

This Government will remain a constructive, supportive and critical partner, committed to supporting reform moves under President Santos in order to see a developing and prosperous Colombia where the human rights of all people are respected and where all people can live in safety, not in fear of their lives, and enjoy the prosperity that I believe is owed to them and that, as a result of President Santos’s reforms, will eventually trickle down to them.

Question put and agreed to.