Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Russia has certainly suffered heavily as a result of the imposition of sanctions in the way that my right hon. Friend describes. We have seen a flight of capital out of Russia, as well as the precipitate fall in the value of the rouble. I hope that the Russian leadership will accept that it is in the interests of the Russian people to implement the Minsk agreement with Ukraine in full and, in particular, to return to Ukraine control of her sovereign borders.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), world leaders rightly made their views known about the Russian actions in Ukraine at the recent G20 summit in Australia. Will the Minister say more about the effect that he thinks the sanctions and the recent fall in the oil price are having on Russia and, in particular, whether he believes that the combined effect is producing a change in Russian attitudes towards fostering nationalism in Ukraine and possibly in other countries with Russian-speaking minorities?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s implicit point that we are concerned not just about Ukraine, but about the doctrine of a right to intervene in support of Russian speakers anywhere in the world. The answer to his question is that, sadly, we are not yet seeing a return to serious talks and the implementation of the Minsk peace agreement by the Russian leadership, but the impact of sanctions on the Russian economy, coupled with the decline in oil prices, is catastrophic. It is in the interests of the Russian people that we see a change.

EU Reform

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my near neighbour in the west midlands, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), on securing the debate. I also greet the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), with whom this is my first proper exchange since I took up this post a few weeks ago, and I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.

I have found the debate extremely interesting and revealing. It has been revealing to me because it has illustrated the plight of the Minister and the Prime Minister, for which I have some sympathy. As I have listened to the hon. Member for Stone, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the other hon. Members who have spoken, I have found myself asking what kind of renegotiation by the Prime Minister could possibly satisfy them, other than one leading to Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed himself to that question in summing up. I have sympathy for the Prime Minister in the task that he has set himself, given the yardsticks set for him in this debate by his hon. and dear Friends.

As the hon. Member for Stone said, we had some interesting exchanges yesterday with the Bundestag’s Committee on the Affairs of the European Union, whose members have been visiting the UK this week. This debate is timely in a sense, because both of our countries are major members of the European Union but we look at the European Union through different eyes.

It is sometimes said that for Britain, EU membership is purely transactional. I hesitate to endorse that verdict. I think it is a mistake to ignore the commitment to democracy, equality, human rights and the peaceful resolution of problems that comes with membership. It is an achievement of no small significance that today it is almost inconceivable that two member states of the European Union could go to war with one another. Given what is happening on the fringes of the European Union, it would be wrong for us to dismiss that achievement.

Britain and Germany have different histories, and we look at the issue through different eyes, but there is an aspect of common values to it, as well as a purely transactional one. On a day-to-day basis, as I am sure the Minister will confirm, Britain and Germany have much in common in our approach to the European Union. In ordinary working meetings of the Council of Ministers, British and German Ministers often agree.

Of course, as this debate has rightly outlined, we do not always face the same issues. Germany is a member of the eurozone; indeed, it is the lead guarantor. The UK is not, and is highly unlikely to join the euro, meaning that Germany faces issues, such as banking union and fiscal compacts with other member states, that we in the UK sometimes do not, and we are not part of some of those agreements. We sometimes have a distinct approach to economic and financial issues. Given our rule and the size of the financial sector in the UK, and its global reach relative to the rest of our economy, it is absolutely right that we should reserve the right to take a distinctive approach on some of those issues.

[Mr Redwood]

Does that not mean that we need a new relationship? Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that, according to his logic, we cannot be in the room when a lot of financial matters are discussed because we are not part of the compacts relating to the euro?

[Mr McFadden]

The euro has been in place for some time. During that period, London’s financial strength has if anything grown, not diminished. I would not agree with the right hon. Gentleman if he suggested that being outside the euro somehow meant that we could not play a constructive role within the EU.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr McFadden]

I will press on, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.

Another issue that has arisen in this debate is the free movement of people, which has been at the heart of discussion in the UK in recent months about our relationship with the EU. I have looked up the figures. Eurostat, for example, calculates that net migration from elsewhere in the EU in 2012 was 230,000 for Germany and 82,000 for the UK. It is important to give some context to the view that everyone from everywhere else in the EU is always migrating to the UK. That is not the case. There are significant migration flows into both Germany and Britain, and it is important to have a debate in both countries about the rules under which EU migration should operate.

The Government have made certain announcements about restricting access to benefits for some EU migrants, and my own party agrees that access to benefits should be conditional. Most EU migrants come to work and not to claim—the recent report by University college London showed that overall, they are net contributors—but of course it is not just an issue of accounting. It is important that we have rules that are seen to be fair, and that operate in fairness to our own citizens as well as to those who come here. Today, in my party, the shadow Home Secretary announced that we believe that an EU migration fund should be established to help local areas that find themselves under particular pressure due to freedom of movement. If freedom of movement is to remain a core principle, it is reasonable for member states to ask for some help from the EU budget to help communities adjust where there are consequences for local areas.

I believe that on this question, Britain and Germany have much in common. I do not believe that Germany wants the rules for access to benefits to be abused; a case came to the European Court of Justice the other day. The Prime Minister has taken us into new territory. He is now talking not just about conditionality for benefits under freedom of movement but about changing the principle of free movement itself. That approach appears to have been rebuffed by Chancellor Merkel, with the Der Spiegel report that she sees it as a red line that she would not cross, and that at that point she would stop her efforts to keep Britain in the European Union. It would be one thing if I thought that the Prime Minister’s shift in strategy had been carefully thought out, but he appears to have crossed the line with little thought for what it will mean for his renegotiation. Can the Minister tell us how many member states have told him that they support reform of the principle of free movement since the Prime Minister made his announcement?

Of course some Back Benchers, and perhaps some Conservative Members in this room, will be pleased by the shift because they may not want the Prime Minister’s renegotiation to succeed. Perhaps glory for them is defined not by a successful renegotiation but by one that fails, leading to UK withdrawal from the EU. I am afraid that there I must part company with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who said that we might all be united in our view today. It is not a consensus shared by me or my party.

There are major British interests, in terms of jobs, employment rights and investment, in getting it right and in remaining part of the EU. What we are seeing is a governmental strategy, if one can call it that, which is led more by party management and trying to keep happy the party members who agree with the hon. Member for Stone than by our national interests. The danger for the Minister and the Government is that if he and his colleagues keep standing at the edge of the cliff and making demands in order that they will not jump, eventually other member states will stop their efforts to stop them from jumping and say, “Go ahead, and be our guest.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Sunday’s elections were a clear demonstration of Ukraine’s commitment to democracy. We have made it clear, and the European Union again last week endorsed a collective position, that we will not recognise illegal elections organised by separatists. The only elections we will recognise are those organised by and operating under Ukrainian law.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is good to be back on the Front Bench after a short absence. I thank hon. Members for their messages of good will, especially those from some Government Members who are somewhat fearful of their own party’s direction at the present time.

In our current debates about the European Union, we should not forget that its expansion to include former Warsaw pact countries was a victory for peace and democracy. It was a foreign policy victory for the west, championed by the Conservative Government at the time, and it means that war between member states is almost inconceivable. However, for countries outside the EU, such as Ukraine, it can be a very different story. Following the elections, what more can we do with our European partners to stop the further undermining of Ukrainian sovereignty and ensure that a newly elected Government there is free to choose its own path for the country’s future?

[Mr Hammond]

First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s return to his place on the Front Bench. We look forward to debating all these issues with him.

Of course the election on Sunday was important in underscoring the legitimacy of the Ukrainian Government. I have already set out our demands that the Russians comply with their obligations under the Minsk agreement—withdrawing their troops from Ukrainian territory, allowing proper monitoring of the border and ending their support to the separatists—but it goes further than that. It is about the more subtle forms of Russian control and influence over the Ukrainian economy and political system. We are working closely with President Poroshenko and his Government to ensure that Ukraine has a robust position in response to those forms of pressure. Although the European Union does not agree on all issues in relation to the Russia-Ukraine dispute, it is pretty much clear and unified in its view that Ukraine must be allowed to choose its own future free of external pressure.

Ukraine, Middle East, North Africa and Security

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

As we debate these issues, it is not clear whether we will face them as a United Kingdom or as a country forced apart, but I very much hope that we will face them as a United Kingdom in the weeks and months to come.

The shadow of the past is long in debates such as this, particularly the House’s decision just over 10 years ago to go to war in Iraq, but also the decision last year not to intervene militarily in Syria. There is no doubt that past decisions that we have taken have angered jihadists, but although we acknowledge that, it is important also to say that it is a fundamental and dangerous misconception to think that the ideology of Islamist extremism stems only from the decision on Iraq or exists only as a response to western foreign policy. That misconception must be dealt with, because for as long as it prevails, we fail to understand the threat that we face and are encouraged to believe that we can somehow opt out of it.

We should not forget that it was two years before the invasion of Iraq that the attack on 11 September, the anniversary of which is tomorrow, took place. We should not ignore the fact that we took a decision not to intervene in Syria last year, yet today it is the global headquarters of violent jihadist extremism. There has been no western intervention in Nigeria, yet Boko Haram wreaks havoc, kills civilians and kidnaps schoolgirls.

There is an imperialist conceit that suggests that foreign policy is divided into a world of adults, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, and other countries or forces, which are children. It is not true, and it absolves others of responsibility for their actions. We live in a world of adults and adults. No one forces anyone to bomb a marketplace or behead an innocent journalist on video. Those actions are the responsibility of those who carry them out, and it is important that we are clear about that.

The issue is not whether we have to respond but how. Withdrawal from the world’s problems has become quite fashionable—“Nothing to do with us,” “All too difficult,” or even, at its worst, “Let them kill one another.” That is not only morally bankrupt but against our own interests, because in an interconnected world we cannot opt out of facing threats. Violent jihadism has already taken innocent lives in this country and indeed this city, and it can do so again in the future.

The Prime Minister is right to define this as a generational struggle, but definition takes us only halfway. We also have to will the means to respond. President Obama will set out his strategy on the response to ISIS later today, and in all likelihood it will include an element of military response. At some point, we will be asked whether we want to join in and support that action. It is good that we debate that and learn the lessons from the past, but we must not be imprisoned by the past. If we are to set out conditions for joining in action, let us do so, but let us not have an ever-lengthening list of conditions that are designed not as a means of reaching a decision, but rather as a means of never having to take one.

[Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point. With the thinnest of resources in our Foreign Office and intelligence services, and without the aid or contribution of the United States, what lessons might we draw from what happened recently in Mali and the Sahel, where early intervention was able to repel al-Qaeda, which has been the closest to our shores most recently? Does that show that we need a unity of approach, and development, governance and security at the same time and not as choices? Early intervention to repel the threat has delivered a success, and that is noticeable by its omission during today’s debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point and, as has been said several times, it would be wrong to draw the lesson that we have been here before and that intervention is always wrong.

Let me return to the issue of values, because too often we debate such things as though they are only a question of military action or not, and we forget to stress what we believe in and why this threat is so important. The values that we are familiar with are no less important because we are familiar with them: Governments elected by the democratic will of the people and where power passes peacefully if the people change their minds in a subsequent election; equality for men and women; freedom of speech; freedom of religion. In this country, people can go to the mosque on Friday, the synagogue on Saturday, church on Sunday, and many can say that they do not want to go to any of those. Those are fundamental freedoms.

The problem is not Islam. Islam is practised peacefully by millions of people in this country and throughout the world, without doing any harm to anyone. The problem is that strand of perverted religion which says that co-existence is impossible. We must stand for co-existence and for the pluralism of a society that says that there is no single truth that everyone has to sign up to and believe. Pointing a gun at people’s heads and saying, “Convert or die” is the absolute antithesis of the pluralism, democracy and equality in which we believe. This is not just about military action; this is about our values. If we retreat from the world and do not take on this fight, we will end up with a diminished, shrunken Britain. That should not be our vision for the future or what we stand for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

As many hon. Members have said, this has been a wide-ranging and deeply thoughtful debate. At a time when, understandably, many Members of all parties are focusing on the Union and our own constitutional debate, it is important that today, on behalf of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we have debated how to keep all our citizens safe using our enviable international power, partnerships, intelligence infrastructure, military capabilities and other resources. We have discussed how to protect our own people as well as civilians overseas, and how to protect and pursue our values for those who are caught up in horrific conflicts.

[Mr McFadden]

Does my right hon. Friend think that that point is particularly important given that Glasgow airport suffered its own terrorist attack a couple of years ago, which shows that the whole UK faces the same threat from the forces that are attacking our way of life?

[Yvette Cooper]

We do face the same threats right across the United Kingdom, and we stand together most effectively against those threats when we work together, including our intelligence and security agencies and police forces. We should pay tribute to those bodies, because they work immensely hard throughout the Union, as has been reflected in today’s debate.

Members across the House have shown great experience in their contributions, particularly in foreign affairs, which shows how seriously we take the threats to regional and global stability, as well as to our interests at home. This has been a difficult debate to sum up, because the range of contributions has been so diverse. I therefore say to the Government that adding those four issues together in a single debate has perhaps strained its nature and made it complex to respond to.

We heard about the principles of foreign policy and how far we should learn from our international history. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) spoke about Iraq, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) about Afghanistan, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) about Syria, and they mentioned the lessons of each of those decisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) warned that we must learn from the past but not be imprisoned by it.

We debated how far we should engage and Britain’s role in the world, and the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) had different perspectives on what Britain’s role could be. As the shadow Foreign Secretary made clear, in a complex world with new and complex threats, it is ever more important for us to work through partnerships and alliances, rather than to seek isolation.

We have debated the roles of strategy and the principles of military engagement and diplomacy or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, how we use the weapons of the military and the weapons of the mind. We heard a detailed contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) who spoke about the importance of Iran, and other hon. Members mentioned Turkey. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) debated the Iraqi Government, and the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) spoke about sanctions and Russia. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) and others spoke about the awful conditions in Gaza, and the need to break out of the cycle of violence.

The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) spoke about events and the response to ISIL, and rightly argued about the importance of that response being led by those in the region—the Iraqi Government, the Kurdish Regional Government and members of the Arab League. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said that we cannot turn our backs or walk away, and that we are most effective when we work in partnership.

We have had a wide-ranging debate on all those issues, but in my remaining minutes I want to concentrate on security, and particularly the implications for domestic security. Although most of the debate has been about ISIL and the threat it poses, we have been warned for many months by the Security Service about the threat that ISIL and the conflict in Syria have been posing to our domestic security at home. That was brought savagely home to us by the terrible videos of the beheadings of American journalists, with a British voice being heard, and the threat to British citizens who are kidnapped. As the Foreign Secretary said earlier, that appears to be at the hands of a British citizen who has joined the barbarism, and we have been warned about many of our citizens who have become involved.

We have had threats from extremists against Britain before, so this is not new. Since 9/11, 330 people have been convicted of terrorism-related offences in Britain. We have seen attacks inspired by al-Qaeda, and attacks carried out or attempted by British citizens—some trained abroad, many radicalised at home. Last year we had the awful attack on Drummer Lee Rigby, and the murder by a right-wing extremist of Mohammed Saleem.

We stand against extremism and violence in all its forms wherever we see it, whether that is by condemning the appalling rise in anti-Semitic attacks or the awful increase in Islamophobic attacks, or condemning those who become involved in terrorist organisations or extremist groups and who do not share our values, no matter that they may have been born or brought up in Britain.

Those who join ISIL extremists are going to join no Spanish civil war. They are beheading people and parading their heads on spikes, subjugating women and girls, and killing Muslims, Christians and anyone who gets in their way. As many hon. Members have said clearly, this is no liberation movement; it is a perverted, oppressive ideology that bears no relation to Islam. Some of the strongest voices against young Britons joining the conflict have been Muslim youth groups, communities and parents desperate to stop young people going. We agree with the Government that more needs to be done to prevent young people from being drawn into the conflict and to deal with the threat they pose.

More could also be done to improve the situation. We have called for improvements to the Prevent programme. The Home Secretary has said previously that before 2010 the programme was flawed but has now been improved, and she has defended its effectiveness. I hope she will review that because there are gaps in the programme. There were flaws in it before and there are flaws in it now. Things change all the time and more needs to be done, working with communities to support community-led programmes to prevent young people from being radicalised.

The programme must keep up with new methods of radicalisation. Young people are now being recruited not simply by traditional methods, but by appeals through social media, contacts from friends and so on—different kinds of approaches that need to be responded to. Excellent work is being done by the Channel programme, but more people, particularly those returning from the region, must be required to engage immediately with the programme, which has done important work de-radicalising people and reducing the threat. The Government should also do more in respect of temporary passport seizures. Some who left should have been stopped, and we look forward to working with the Government on ways to bring in those powers.

I hope the Home Secretary will say more about the measures the Prime Minister announced, because there is some confusion around them. Downing street has briefed that people born as British citizens will be prevented from returning to the country, even if they have no alternative citizenship. The Prime Minister says that this would comply with international obligations—international law prevents countries from making their citizens stateless—and has said it would be a targeted, discretionary power to allow us to exclude British nationals from the UK. It sounds as though the Government intend people to remain British citizens but be kept out of the country. How would this work? Do they hope that other countries will adopt people? Is this a temporary exclusion? Are they to be detained at foreign airports or to be deported somewhere else? What is the plan? There is considerable confusion, and no one has yet been able to understand their intention.

On the proposals for terrorism prevention and investigation measures, the Prime Minister has said that relocation powers will be restored, but the Deputy Prime Minister has said they are looking only at existing powers. The Home Secretary knows our view: we have argued from the start that the police and security services need relocation powers at their disposal, subject to the agreement of the courts, to be used in the difficult cases of terror suspects who, for complex reasons, cannot be prosecuted. She has defended the removal of relocation powers in the past, but I hope she will now recognise the importance of reintroducing them. None of those relocated under control orders ever absconded, whereas two of those in whose cases the relocation powers were removed under TPIMs did then abscond. She has not confirmed that relocation powers will be introduced or said when they will be introduced. The powers are ready, in the clauses drafted and scrutinised as part of emergency legislation, and we stand ready to bring them in as soon as she brings them forward. Will she confirm that she intends to do so?

This has been a complex and thoughtful debate. The challenge is to protect our security and the values of our democracy. In certain areas, we need not only strong powers but strong checks and balances to protect the values and the liberty of our democracy, as well as the safety of our citizens. The challenge abroad is to act with humility but determination and to pursue the co-operation and collaboration we need at a time when those threats are becoming more complex than ever.

Sri Harmandir Sahib

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Of course I agree with that, but I am not accusing anybody in the House of doing anything other than seeking the truth about these matters, and it is important we do that across parties. Procedures for the release of documents have been established across parties and different Governments over a long period of time, and I hope that if we improve and change those procedures, that will also command cross-party consensus. Let us hope that Members across the House will always approach the issue in that spirit.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The core fact exposed by the release of documents a few weeks ago and in the Foreign Secretary’s statement today is that advice was given by this country in the run-up to an attack on the holiest place in Sikhism. Given that fact, and given the tremendous pain and grief over the broader events of 1984 in India, does the Foreign Secretary understand that there will be calls in the community for an apology or gesture of reconciliation from the Government, and will he give the House his response to those calls? What can the Government do internationally to get to the full truth of this matter, because the British Sikh community feels that that full truth has never been told?

[Mr Hague]

There are several parts to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I think the report should be acknowledged, even by those who criticise it, as a big step in establishing the truth about many matters. It is clear and covers many documents, and is a thorough piece of work by the Cabinet Secretary. It is important for us to support all processes of reconciliation, and to do so through the dialogue with the Sikh community which I am sure the Government will continue, as, I hope, will all political parties in this country. When it comes to judging these past events for ourselves, if I or any of us thought that this country had at any time materially contributed to unnecessary loss of life, it would be something that we should say was a mistake, for which the country should apologise. That case cannot be made for these documents, however, and we must respect what they say.

European Council

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I take my hon. Friend’s description of me as a compliment, though I recall that Dr Johnson described a lexicographer as “a harmless drudge”—if I remember the quote from his dictionary accurately.

The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that we must again go back to the distinction between a policy that is directed by and owned by the EU collectively and its institutions, which we do not have, and a broad policy on security and defence that rests on free co-operation between willing national Governments working together so that their capabilities complement one another, and working in partnership particularly with NATO but with other partners around the world as well. There is nothing to fear from the latter version of the common security and defence policy, and that is the version embodied in the European Council conclusions.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

In advance of the summit, the Prime Minister made great play of new rules regarding access to benefits for EU migrant workers. What proportion of claimants for working-age benefits are made up of EU migrant workers?

[Mr Lidington]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said in this House before, one of the difficulties we have had is that the previous Government chose not to collect statistics for social security benefits categorised by nationality of claimants. He and his team at the DWP are now changing that, and I am sure that they will produce those figures in due course, but they do not exist for the period of years that the right hon. Gentleman wants, because his Government did not bother to collect them.

Syria

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I think that we have to try, although my hon. Friend’s question is entirely valid. Of course we disapprove strongly of continued arms sales to the regime. Those arms are being used by the regime in the present conflict, and there has been the recent announcement about anti-ship missiles. I do not think that that helps in the present circumstances. At the same time, we must work with Russia, which is a partner on the United Nations Security Council. As time has shown, we cannot pass any resolution on this subject without working with Russia. Therefore, rather than expressing optimism or pessimism, I say that we must do our utmost to succeed—to have a successful negotiation—and must create all possible conditions to allow it to be successful. The first of those conditions was agreeing with Russia on holding the negotiation; now we must try to make it a success.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The scale of the suffering outlined in the Foreign Secretary’s statement is truly appalling. May I ask him to say a little more about the evidence of the regime’s use of chemical weapons, and about the impact that that evidence is having on discussions about possible arms supplies to the opposition, both within Europe and with the United States?

[Mr Hague]

As I said in my statement, we have some credible evidence about the use of chemical weapons, particularly sarin; but, as I also said in my statement, that does not give us evidence about the scale of use. There are a number of reports and accounts, and in some cases there is actual physical evidence, of the use of chemical weapons on a small, localised scale, which could easily mean that the regime is testing how the world will react. The use of such weapons is, of course, totally unacceptable on any scale, but, in our view, that is the pattern that is emerging.

What is important now is for the United Nations investigation for which we called, and which is being mounted by the UN, to have access to all the relevant sites, but so far the regime has denied it access. That is a rather telling point in itself. Of course, the regime’s preparedness to use any weapons at all against the people of its own country should affect the debate that we have about how we are to help those people.

Death Penalty (India)

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Kesri Lehar campaign to abolish the death penalty in India, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) has mentioned the warm relationship between the UK and India, which has been a sovereign independent state for 65 years. Let us be clear from the beginning that no other Government can tell the Indian Government or Parliament what to do. It is a sovereign state with its own laws, elected Parliament and judicial system. The modern relationship between the United Kingdom and India is one of equals and of mutual respect. There is a great deal of interaction on trade, education and culture, and it is in that spirit of friendship and mutual respect that this debate is being held.

Many thousands of my constituents originate from the Punjab—and from the city of Jalandhar in particular—where either they or their parents or grandparents were born. I have had the pleasure and honour of visiting India three times since being elected to this House in 2005. I have visited Jalandhar, where so many of my constituents have family roots. I helped to organise an education partnership between schools in Wolverhampton and in the Punjab. I worked with the Punjabi Wolves football supporters club to foster a friendship agreement between Wolves and JCT football club of Punjab. I have met many people in India from non-governmental organisations and from the Union Government and state governments, and have been greeted everywhere with warmth and friendship. I was honoured to be able to pay a pilgrimage to Harmandir Sahib, the Golden Temple at Amritsar and spiritual home of the Sikh community throughout the world. That is an experience that I will never forget.

Relations between our two countries are good, but we are having this debate because of the grave concerns of the large population of those of Indian origin in the UK, many thousands of whom, as I have said, I have the honour of representing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said, the Kesri Lehar petition has been signed by tens of thousands of people throughout the UK. Some of the signatures were presented to No. 10 Downing street in December and I was pleased to be able to speak at that day’s lobby to express my support for the campaign to abolish the death penalty in India.

The campaign has arisen from the grave concerns of the thousands of people who have signed the petition, and those of the UK’s Indian population, particularly the Sikh community, about a number of issues in India. They are concerned about the treatment of some members of the Sikh community in India and, as my hon. Friend has said, about a lack of accountability and the lack of an investigation that holds widespread confidence into the events of 1984, when so many Sikhs were killed. They are also concerned about the death sentences passed on Sikhs. It is those issues that the Kesri Lehar campaign seeks to draw our attention to.

The Sikh community in this country is a successful community. It plays a very positive role in our national life: it works hard, respects faith and family, and contributes a great deal to the UK. I am honoured to represent many thousands of Sikhs. As my hon. Friend said, it is within the rights of our constituents and within our rights to take up issues that are of concern to them. The Sikh communities in Wolverhampton and many other parts of the country are very concerned about this issue.

Attention has been drawn to the cases of Professor Singh Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana, which were outlined by my hon. Friend. Let me be clear that I do not seek to be the judge and jury in those cases or in any others; it is for the courts to determine guilt or innocence. However, I believe that there are certain principles that it is important to establish and that we can speak up for.

The first principle is that justice should be carried out in a fair and transparent way. When facts are disputed, there should be proper investigations with results that can be trusted. Too often, that is not the case. Many of my constituents do not feel that that has happened in the cases that have been raised or over the wider events of 1984. They do not believe that the various commissions that have been launched have got to the truth. The pain of the events of 30 years ago is still very real and very raw for the Sikh community in the UK.

Secondly, people should be accountable and responsible for their actions, no matter what positions of influence or power they hold in society. Thirdly, I believe that this country was right to cease the use of the death penalty many years ago and that we should seek to end its use in other countries. We should have a fundamental concern about the death penalty not only in India, but wherever it is used around the world. Amnesty International reports on its website that in 2011, some 20 states used the death penalty. That is down from about 30 states a decade before. There is progress in that a declining number of states are using the death penalty, but it is still being used too often in too many states.

India’s Supreme Court said in 1980 that the death penalty should be used only in the

“rarest of the rare cases”.

Despite that, the death sentence has been passed regularly by courts since that time. In the past decade, about 130 death sentences a year have been passed. Therefore, the campaign goes on.

I respect fully India’s sovereignty. As a friend of India, I hope that it will think again about the use of the death penalty and join the ranks of the nations that have abolished it. I hope that that happens and that it is a decision freely taken by India. If it takes that decision, it will be welcomed throughout the world.