Death Penalty (India)

Debate between John McDonnell and Adrian Bailey

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I fully concur with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[John McDonnell]

You, Mr Deputy Speaker, are rightly concerned about the length of time I am taking, so this is the last intervention I will take.

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend talked about Members representing their Punjabi constituents. I have a petition with over 1,200 names on my desk, and what is significant about it is not only the number of Punjabi names, but the number of names of English origin, which I think reflects how the whole community in this country regards this policy in India. Does he agree that, if pursued, it will be damaging within not only the Indian diaspora in this country, but the indigenous and long-standing white community?

[John McDonnell]

I fully concur. I think that it will definitely be seen as a setback for us all.

Secondly, there is understandable concern among the Punjabi community because of the abiding sense of injustice within the community about the historic human rights abuses endured in the 1980s and 1990s, for which there has been no proper redress, and the ongoing human rights abuses experienced in recent times, such as physical abuse by the police, evidence of torture in cells and deaths in custody. That has also been experienced, as I have said, by the Dalit community and others.

Thirdly, people should also understand that the Sikh and Punjabi culture abhors the death penalty and human rights abuses. When the Sikh nation was established and the Darbar Sahib, or golden temple, was founded, the Sikh religion instilled in Punjabi culture a profound respect for life. Sikhs are always portrayed as warriors, but they were only warriors to defend their religion. During the period when there was an independent Punjabi nation, the death penalty did not feature in the law or governmental system and no one was put to death. That tradition of abhorrence of the death penalty and respect for life is reflected now in the Kesri Lehar petition calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

What can we do to bring about reform? We must first recognise that the historical relationship between India and Britain means that the UK Government are uniquely placed to urge the Indian Government to end the death penalty. Therefore, I call upon the UK Government to use every forum and every mechanism of communication established with India, formal and informal, to press the Indian Government to halt the executions now and sign up to the UN convention opposing the death penalty.

I wrote to the Prime Minister before his recent visit to India to urge him to raise the issue with the Indian Government, and I hope that today the Minister can report back on that and on the continuing pressure that successive Governments of different parties have put on the Indian Government. To add weight to the British Government’s representations, I urge them to raise the issue again with our European partners and to seek a joint representation from Europe on the subject. I urge the British Government, working with other Governments, to raise this call within the United Nations. With the UN Commission on Human Rights meeting imminently, this is an ideal time to put this back on the UN agenda.

My final words are addressed to the Indian Government. I said in the debate last July that India is the largest democracy in the world, yet it now stands alone in the developing world by still supporting the death penalty. Since then, unfortunately, it has stepped backwards and recommenced implementing the death penalty. I appeal to India, the country of so many religions and value systems that value life, the country of Gandhi and non-violence, the country that now seeks to be a world leader, and to our Indian brothers and sisters in government there to embrace humanity by ending the state killing once and for all.

Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords]

Debate between John McDonnell and Adrian Bailey

Monday 19th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am sure that one could develop an argument along those lines. I hesitate to do so because I have an innate faith in good will and do not believe that a supermarket would be so unscrupulous as to do that. Perhaps he does not share my innate faith in the good will of supermarkets.

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

The best example of that is that when the Competition Commission found that a supermarket was reducing the price of bread to 7p, which was below cost price, that supermarket gained a boost in sales.

[Mr Bailey]

That is a form of advertising that could, in certain situations, benefit a retailer.

It is simplistic to believe that the possibility that the Secretary of State will implement fines will be a sufficient deterrent. Even if the Secretary of State feels that it is appropriate to levy fines, the process for arriving at that point is slow and cumbersome. Under schedule 3, before the Secretary of State can make such an order, he must consult six bodies, plus any other body that he feels it appropriate to consult. That is a time-consuming and possibly self-defeating process. It is a slow and ineffective way to implement the deterrent on the retailer, which could be exploited considerably.

I also find the Government’s approach rather strange in respect of the escalation of penalties. The adjudicator can take notice of the failure of a supermarket to respond to highlighted breaches of the code, but seems to have no enforcement powers to do anything about it. There is no express sanction for non-compliance with a recommendation, but it may be taken into account when further arbitration is carried out. That is hugely time-consuming and amounts to an invitation to ignore the adjudicator. I cannot help but reflect on the danger identified by Murray Worthy of War on Want:

“A watchdog that is all bark and no bite won’t be able to stop supermarkets bullying their suppliers.”

I will move on briefly to a couple of other issues. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee reflected on intermediaries at some length. We said that third parties, such as trade associations, should be able to give evidence to initiate an inquiry. The Ministers seem to have accepted that point and my intervention earlier elicited the sort of response that I wanted. I emphasise that this issue is extremely important and that there should be no delay in the adjudicator being able to implement such provisions.

Lastly, I have a request. Given the importance of the adjudicator, I hope that the Government will allow the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the proposed adjudicator. Given that the Select Committee was entrusted with the pre-legislative scrutiny and given the concerns that have been echoed in all parts of the House, I feel that it is important for the Select Committee to have the chance to question the adjudicator to ascertain whether we feel that they will apply the rigour and forensic examination that are needed to deliver what everybody in the House wants.

There is a huge groundswell of support from all parties for the Government to consider fines. Although I recognise that the Bill is very significant as it stands, I hope that the Government will listen to the voices from all parts of the House and table an amendment at a subsequent stage to ensure that there is a power to levy fines. That would make a good Bill into a very good Bill indeed.