UK Extradition Arrangements
Debate between Stephen Phillips and Jeremy Corbyn(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I start by congratulating the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on how he introduced it. I also place on the record my pleasure that, after the unfortunate way in which the debate was punted into Westminster Hall, we now have it on the Floor of the House. I thank those concerned and those who campaigned to ensure that these huge petitions were responded to properly.
When I was first elected to the House, I never would have dreamed it possible that public campaigns and public concern could result in a debate in the House of Commons. We spent years trying to secure debates on the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and several other cases that turned out to be serious miscarriages of justices and which, in the current atmosphere, would undoubtedly have attracted the same number of petitioners as the cases being discussed tonight. We should welcome the fact that Parliament has manoeuvred itself into a position where it can be more responsive to public concerns and justice issues. I hope that it continues. After all, that is what we are sent here for—not only to write laws and change laws but to consider issues of miscarriages of justice.
I want to refer briefly to three cases and then make a couple of general points. I shall not talk at great length about the first one because others have done so. The case of Gary McKinnon has been well reported and documented, and his mother and family have campaigned so assiduously on it, as has his own MP and many others. It is time that we understood that the McKinnon case goes to the heart of a whole load of inadequacies, of both our system and our relationship with the United States, which, as the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) pointed out a minute ago, is not a reciprocal arrangement, but something fundamentally different.
Stephen Phillips
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon. Is not one of the problems with the McKinnon case that there is nothing in the 2003 Act to enable the Home Secretary to take into account either mental or physical illness? That means that Gary McKinnon’s Asperger’s cannot be taken into account when deciding whether he should be extradited.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I agree with him. That is the fundamental weakness in the 2003 Act, which does not allow that discretion which any sensible, right-thinking person would apply straight away on a humanitarian basis.
I was not going to mention the General Pinochet case until I got to the end, but I may as well do so now, as it fits with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point. Like many others, I fought to get Pinochet extradited so that he could go on trial. We won the cases all the way through, but unfortunately the then Home Secretary decided that there was an overriding medical reason for allowing General Pinochet to return on the “Lazarus flight” to Chile, where he walked off the plane and seemed to be perfectly healthy.
North Africa and the Near and Middle East
Debate between Stephen Phillips and Jeremy Corbyn(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Phillips
I will happily give way to my hon. Friend, but I think that attempt was a little tongue in cheek.
On the last occasion that the House debated these issues at length, I spoke on the subject of Egypt, an issue—and indeed a country—close to my heart, not least because of the legacy that this country left for the Egyptians and the responsibility that we bear for the situation in which we left our former mandates with regard to democracy. In the case of Egypt at least, the good beginnings that we perhaps left behind were thrown away.
I shall begin with Egypt, not least because it is in that country that today—at least according to The New York Times and the Financial Times as I have read them online during the day—we have seen those queues, which are so familiar in countries that have not enjoyed democracy, snaking around the block from the polling stations, as those who have not experienced the benefits, even the joys, of electing those who represent them queue to vote for the first time in many cases. That has certainly been the case in Egypt today for many people. With the possible exception of an 18-month period in the 1980s, there have been no real democratic elections in the last 30 years in one of the largest and most populous Arab states.
The right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) observed in his remarks that Egypt is a particularly important country in the context of the Arab spring. That is something with which I agree and with which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agrees. The simple fact is not merely that Egypt is the largest of the Arab countries by population and geographical size but that it carries considerable influence. It is the seat, for example, of the rejuvenated Arab League. As someone said to me earlier, it is the future Brussels of the middle east. It was with horror, therefore, that I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in the debate earlier. I feared that he would remain for the entirety of the debate and that on making that remark, he would intervene on me and tell me the inadequacies of the euro and of everything else to do with the European Union. I am glad to see, at least on this occasion, that he is not in his place and that I can make the remark without fear of intervention.
Stephen Phillips
I have no doubt that whenever I speak in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone is watching.
Egypt has also been the most stalwart of the allies that this country and the entirety of the west have had in the middle east for a number of years. It is a country that has a refined economy that is capable of providing the economic motor for north Africa and the Arab states. It is of course the bread basket of that region and is capable of providing a great deal of food, which is necessary in so many of these impoverished countries and regions. For that reason it is extremely important that the revolution that began earlier this year in Egypt is sustained and that the democracy that we have seen growing is fostered not only by this country but by our allies in the western world and the European Union. There is this fear, certainly in my mind, that were the revolution in Egypt to fail, the rest of the Arab world might run the risk of sinking back into some form of authoritarianism, even were it not the authoritarianism that we witnessed under the Mubarak regime.
When the revolution took place, there was of course great hope. I spoke about it earlier in the year. A number of Members on both sides of the House have said quite rightly that it is not for us to impose our model of democracy on either Egypt or any of the other countries passing through the Arab spring. When the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces took power and the Prime Minister travelled to Cairo after Mubarak’s fall, there was great hope that the sweeping reforms that were promised would be delivered in short order and that there would be a swift return to stability within the country and a prompt transition to elected civilian rule. It is a matter of regret, I think, on both sides of the House, that that has not happened as quickly as we would have liked. There has been an absence of a clear political plan and of the bold reforms that are necessary to deliver democracy in Egypt—as they are necessary to deliver democracy in the rest of the region.
Most worryingly of all, the economy has faltered, which appears to have led to the current ream of protests that have again resurrected themselves in Egypt. The Supreme Council and the generals are obstructing the necessary economic reforms, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) mentioned earlier. That has deterred international investment in Egypt and, most worryingly, it has let the country slide further into debt—the sort of debt that we in the west know all too much about.
The timetable for democracy has been unnecessarily stretched out, from months to years. The generals have hinted that they expect to retain a dominant role, entirely failing to understand or reflect the spirit of change that led to those momentous events in Tahrir square earlier in the year.
The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was overhasty and undemocratic in bringing forward the amendments to the constitution proposed in the al-Selmy proposals. Trying to slip in additional pre-emptive clauses to protect the privileges and powers of the armed forces and trying to keep the defence budget a secret is simply not acceptable in a modern, democratic society. The discipline that the army reimposed on protesters—for example, using military tribunals and the emergency laws first passed in the 1950s and first used in the 1960s—has naturally led those who wanted democracy in Egypt to return to the streets to protest against the lack of progress towards the reforms necessary to secure the sort of democracy that we have in this country.
Those protests have recently resulted in appalling loss of life. Thousands have returned to the streets again not least, as I have mentioned, because of the state of the economy in Egypt, but the response from those who seem to be isolated from their people has been too little, too late: the offers to hold presidential elections by the end of June, to free political prisoners and to allow impartial investigation of the obvious abuses by the security forces that have been documented in the media have been wholly inadequate. It remains to be seen whether the democratic exercise to which the Egyptian people have for the first time been given the right today will calm matters and return peace to the streets of Egypt. That is to be hoped for, given not only the recent unrest but the loss of life last week.
The path to democracy is never easy, however, and we should commend Field Marshall Tantawi and those responsible for ruling Egypt since the revolution on their reiteration of the army’s determination to leave power eventually. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary indicated, however, we should encourage them to do so as quickly as possible.
The recent moves have gone some way to meeting the popular demands of the Egyptian people. No doubt that is why the Muslim Brotherhood expressed cautious support for some of the recent announcements by Field Marshall Tantawi and SCAF. As several speakers have said, we should not tell those whom we are encouraging to exercise their democratic rights what sort of Government they need to elect. If we are honest about democracy, we must live with whatever Government are elected, whether in Egypt or anywhere else. If there is fear in the House about the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in Egypt, as I suspect that it will—no doubt in coalition, which is something of which I am not a great fan, but there we are—that is not something of which the House, the Government or the British people should be afraid.
Other speakers have pointed out that the exercise of power by Islamists who take power through the ballot box deprives al-Qaeda of the oxygen that it has always had, which is its argument that there is no route to Islamist control of middle east countries and Arab states without violent revolution. That is why we do not need to be afraid of these events—indeed, they indicate that we should support those Governments who will take power in due course whether in Egypt or anywhere else.
Whether in Egypt, Syria or elsewhere, the army and those institutions that have hitherto assumed that it is their automatic right to govern should retreat from politics and leave it to politicians elected by the people. Furthermore, military tribunals and emergency laws must be abolished, the legacy in the middle east of failed democracy—so much the fault of the west—must, perhaps for the first time, be cast aside and those who inhabit the Arab states must for the first time have the opportunity to exercise the rights that we take for granted.
Voting by Prisoners
Debate between Stephen Phillips and Jeremy Corbyn(13 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Notwithstanding the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the motion on the Order Paper in my name and that of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House has been carefully crafted in light of the judgments delivered by the Grand Chamber in the Hirst case. For that reason, and given the limit on Back-Bench contributions, I shall confine my remarks to demonstrating why the motion is correct and why it is important that it receives support from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The previous Government’s decision to refer the Hirst matter to the Grand Chamber is something that we have to live with because of the rule of law. We have to respect the judgment that the Court handed down, whether we agree with it or not, but it is important to bear in mind that the decision in Hirst was far from unanimous. A powerful dissent was delivered by the president of the Court, in which he was joined by four other judges. I add that Judge Costa, who is now the president of the Court, also delivered a dissenting opinion. Those dissenting opinions correctly recognised the importance of the Court not interfering or being seen to interfere in domestic political issues.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am listening intently to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Does he recognise that those opinions dissented from the majority opinion of the Court? If we are to support the whole concept of the European convention on human rights and the Court, we have to accept its judgment.
Stephen Phillips
I am grateful for that intervention, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to where I am going rather than to what he has heard so far.
The minority stressed that
“it is essential to bear in mind that the Court is not a legislator and should be careful not to assume legislative functions.”
I make this point, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, because although I accept, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made clear, that the Government are bound by the judgment in the Hirst case as between themselves and Mr Hirst, in the sense that it is res judicata between them, they are not bound in relation to future cases brought by other litigants. There is every prospect, given the debate that we are having today, that the judgment in Hirst would not be followed by the Grand Chamber in future should it come to consider the matter again. To be clear, if, as I trust will happen, there is a clear demonstration in the House today of the will of the people, through their democratically elected representatives, to maintain the status quo regarding the removal of voting rights from those who are subject to custodial sentences, I fail to see how that could not subsequently be respected by the courts of this country and by the Strasbourg Court should the matter have to be considered again.
As even the majority in Hirst recognised, there is a substantial margin of appreciation in the context of article 3 of the convention, and the fact remains that there is no consensus across Europe as to whether those serving custodial sentences should have their right to vote removed as a consequence of having put themselves outside the law. Indeed, it was notable in the judgment of the majority in the Grand Chamber that significant reliance had to be placed on decisions from Canada and South Africa. The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) quoted from the South African case. It is true that Canada and South Africa are both common law countries, but they have significant civil law traditions stemming from French law and Roman-Dutch law respectively.
The margin of appreciation in the context that is being discussed in the House means, or certainly ought to mean, that if the House passes the motion, as I hope it will, and if it decides that it does not believe, in the name of the people of the United Kingdom, that section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 entails any breach of the human rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom, that, to my mind, must be an end of the matter. It will have to be recognised in the courts of this country. It will, I hope, be recognised by the Court in Strasbourg.