Mali

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister in his statement reassured the House that British forces will not undertake a combat role in Mali. Could he give an assurance that British forces will not undertake a combat role in future unless there is a debate and vote in this House?

[Mark Simmonds]

I reiterate what I said before: the Prime Minister made it clear that this is limited logistical support and that there will be no combat troops on the ground. We have no plans to change the military support that we are giving.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

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

Once again I wish to raise the issue of human rights and the death penalty in India. I pay tribute to four organisations—Kesri Lehar, Liberation, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—that have continued to expose the Indian Government’s failure to address human rights abuses effectively. Kesri Lehar launched the “Wave for Justice” campaign, along with a petition, which has now been signed by more than 100,000 people, to seek a full debate in Parliament on the issue, which I hope we can secure later in the year.

I want to raise three issues of concern. The first issue is the historic failure of the Indian Government to bring to justice those who perpetrated the massacre of the Sikhs in Operation Blue Star in 1984, which started with the attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar and resulted in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Sikhs in the following decade, and was described as Indian’s hidden genocide. Despite various commissions of inquiry into abductions, disappearances, extra-judicial executions and secret cremations, Amnesty’s latest report confirms that the Indian Government have failed to hold the perpetrators to account. In 2004, on the 20th anniversary of the massacre, I launched a report in this House called “1984: Sikhs’ Kristallnacht”. We called for an independent commission of truth and justice, under the auspices of the United Nations, to investigate the slaughter. Since then there has been no progress and the Sikhs still await justice.

What is even more galling, however, is that two individuals—Jagdish Tytler and KPS Gill, who are both accused of playing leading roles in the human rights violations in 1984 to 1995—may well seek to visit Britain for the Olympics in their capacity as Olympic officials for India. It would be a travesty of justice and cause deep offence to the whole of the Sikh community in the United Kingdom if these brutes were allowed to enjoy this country’s hospitality.

The human rights abuses go on. Human rights NGOs have confirmed that human rights violations against minorities continue today, including against the Sikhs. Human Rights Watch’s latest report dealt with custodial killings and police abuses, including torture. On average, 1,500 people a year are dying in custody in Indian prisons and police stations, while rape is used as a form or torture. For 18 years the Indian Government have denied the UN rapporteur on torture access to India. Amnesty now reports that over the past two years 30 human rights defenders have been targeted for abuse by state and non-state organisations, with eight people being killed as a result. Meanwhile, the Indian Government have failed to repeal the laws that afford state impunity to human rights abusers. Indeed, impunity seems to be common for the perpetrators of human rights abuses in India. That is not acceptable by any standards.

The ultimate violation of human rights, however, is to take a person’s life. That is why there was such shock and anger at the Indian Government’s threat—made only months ago, after an eight-year hiatus—to implement the death penalty against people such as Professor Davinder Singh Bhullar and Balwant Singh Rajoana. Professor Bhullar was convicted only on a confession that was obtained by torture and later retracted. Balwant Singh Rajoana has already served 17 years on death row and has suffered enough. The threat of capital punishment for those individuals has been lifted for the time being, but now two thirds of the world has renounced the death penalty. I say as a friend of India that it is time India did so too.

I appreciate what both the last Government and this Government have done in making representations to the Indian Government over the years. I also pay tribute to the work that the Minister has done in pressing the Indian Government on these issues. However, I once again urge the Government to use our bilateral talks, and the EU-India human rights dialogue, to call on India to take decisive action to protect human rights and, in particular, to abolish the death penalty. It is time India addressed this issue. India is the largest democracy on the globe, yet it stands alone in the developing world in still supporting the death penalty. India should adhere to human rights and, at the same time, ensure that capital punishment is no longer a stain on the country.

Arms Trade Treaty

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

The role of NGOs in monitoring and in the transparency efforts that we are trying to make in the treaty will be vital. They can see an important role for themselves and we will certainly encourage that. I am very keen to keep them involved but practically, not everybody can go to the same meetings. The chair has taken the view that to get things done now—we have lost a bit of time—he has had to produce this programme. Everybody over there understands that, but we will do our best to keep everyone in touch.

It is too early to say how the negotiations will conclude. A lot can change in two weeks in a multilateral negotiation of this sort—I am sure colleagues appreciate that momentum builds either towards success or something different. It is already clear that contentious issues remain, particularly around the treaty’s scope and criteria. As the hon. Member for Gower has noted, and as he said in his second question, a new chair’s paper has issued. The text is a discussion paper based on his consultations with all UN member states. Although the Government believe the paper is a good basis for discussions—we welcome large parts of the document, including, for example, the retention of ammunition in the scope—there are undoubtedly aspects that we believe need further work and strengthening.

One such aspect is the section on criteria. The UK delegation has made it clear in its interventions in New York and its bilateral consultations that the UK would like the language on criteria to be strengthened. The UK supports an ATT containing a mandatory refusal if there is substantial risk that the export would be used to commit a serious violation of international humanitarian or human rights law. Ministers and senior officials are echoing those sentiments in their bilateral and multilateral meetings on the treaty.

The hon. Gentleman also rightly raised in his third question the positive role the ATT could have in reducing armed violence and gender-based violence. Let me assure him and the House that gender-based violence is an important issue for many states, not least the UK. We want it included in the treaty. All groups, whether characterised by age, gender, ethnicity, religion or other, should be afforded protection by an ATT. We will continue to work with like-minded states to ensure we secure the strongest possible ATT.

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

May I reiterate on behalf of the House the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton)? We need firmer measures. If that means fewer measures, so be it. We then take the battle into the Assembly itself.

[Alistair Burt]

As the hon. Member for Gower suggested, I do not want to indicate at this stage what the likely outcome will be, but I am on record as saying at one or two meetings that we will not sign an agreement that makes things weaker. There is no point in that, and there has to be a moment when we walk away, but I will not hide it from colleagues that the choice might end up being very difficult. We want to get enough in to make it worth while and we want enough people to sign to make it effective, but there will be some tough choices to make at the end. All I can say is that we will do our best to be as inclusive as possible when we get there. Then we will see. There will always be a tomorrow. That is important. Whether or not this is as successful as we want—it is highly unlikely to be written as we would want it—there will always be the opportunity of a further process.

The commitment of the Government, the UK delegation, the wider team in London and our network of posts around the world remains clear, and reflects the view of the House. We will work tirelessly, co-ordinating closely with civil society and the UK defence industry in support of our common goal. This is an historic opportunity to make the world a safer place. The international community owes it to the people whose lives have been blighted by conflict and armed violence associated with the unregulated trade in arms to use the remaining two weeks to maximum effect. The UK will be working tirelessly to this end. One of the purposes for which the UN was founded was to achieve co-operation in solving problems of a humanitarian character and to encourage respect for human rights. An effective, legally binding ATT will help to do that and more, and we are sparing no effort in our pursuit of that aim.

Question put and agreed to.

Safety of Journalists Abroad

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) on securing the debate and on his excellent opening speech, which set the discussion in context. I am secretary of the all-party parliamentary group for the National Union of Journalists, of which he is also a member. We have been addressing the subject for numerous years and have had a series of ministerial meetings, including with the Secretary of State for Defence some years ago about embedded journalists and what mechanisms could be put in place. I concur with the statement about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When individuals have been detained or gone missing—a number of journalists have disappeared—the FCO has been nothing but superb in the support that it has given to families and the representations that it has made.

We thought that our representations years ago were an opportunity for us to tackle the issue of impunity. Various international instruments were in place, and we thought that the number of journalists dying and disappearing would decline, but that has not occurred. It is shocking. I went through last year’s list. I will not read the names into the record, as it would take too long. Most names are probably not even notable; often, they were simply journalists working on the ground at local level. The list ranges around the world and includes support workers as well as journalists and TV production crew.

I will read out the figures for the past five years. I cannot remember when we last debated the issue, but we certainly debated it in 2006. In 2006, we were angry and concerned because 155 journalists and staff were killed. Then, in 2007, the number rose to 172. It was 85 in 2008, 139 in 2009, 94 in 2010 and 106 in 2011. The right hon. Gentleman is correct: the number has grown to 120-odd in the updated figures and, therefore, things are not improving. Records prepared by the NUJ, working with the International Federation of Journalists, confirm that more than 1,000 journalists and support staff have been killed over the past 10 years. Only one in eight of the killers is ever prosecuted, and two thirds are not even identified.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, we can identify individual regimes. The Gambian regime under Jammeh has been a nightmare, and we have raised the issue time and again. Jammeh will brook no opposition or democratic debate, and any journalist who reports on corruption in the regime is risking their life. Many journalists have left the country, and this country has given many of them refugee status.

Given that we are taking on such regimes, it is embarrassing that we have not been able to secure a proper inquiry into the deaths in Iraq of Terry Lloyd and the person working alongside him. When democratic countries do not pull their weight, it is difficult to enforce proper practices in other countries.

I share the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised about women. On international women’s day, the NUJ, via the IFJ, once again raised the issue of the extreme violence against women. The IFJ and NUJ have consistently tried to expose and denounce individual cases. As Mindy Ryan, the chair of the NUJ’s equality council and the IFJ’s gender council, said:

“The climate of impunity for crimes against female journalists constitutes a serious threat to the most fundamental of free expression rights. Moreover, there is an on-going concern over the fact that the authorities tend to deny that these women have been killed because of their work as journalists. Instead, they tend to indicate robbery or ‘personal issues’ as motives of the media killings.”

Unless we can demonstrate that women are being raped, abused and murdered as a result of their professional work, what happens to them suddenly becomes just an ordinary crime, and countries and regimes can act with impunity. One of the worst examples involved the journalists who were exposing the sexual abuse and assaults taking place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where more than 8,000 cases of sexual violence were perpetrated in a single year. Women journalists, in particular, came under attack and faced threats as a result of the work they did to expose those things.

As the right hon. Member for Bath said in opening the debate, everything comes back to the question whether we can get UNESCO and other international organisations to ensure that there are reports on investigations into crimes against journalists. The investigations that do take place are extremely limited, and the reports on them are often not published. Indeed, even if they are, there is no follow-through against the regime or the country involved—we do not seem able even to expose them effectively.

The Government could take a lead on the issue. That is not a party political point, and Members across parties have urged such action in debates in the past. The UK Government need to be the Government who are seen to stand up for journalists around the world. Where they are a member of an international body that has a role in protecting journalists against such crimes, they should not allow it to meet without our raising these issues and ensuring that we gear up for action.

In addition, we need to put the issue on the agenda in some of our bilateral relationships. For example, the next time the Government meet Putin, we have to put this issue back on the agenda. Russia has been one of the worst places for journalists, who are hounded simply for revealing some of the corruption in that country. We cannot try to develop harmonious relationships with countries while turning a blind eye to the atrocities that are perpetrated against journalists just because they are doing their job.

We need to think in more detail about the mechanisms that can be used not only to expose countries, but to ensure that action is taken against them. We should seek to isolate those countries and regimes that are notorious for assaulting and murdering journalists simply for undertaking their jobs.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Philippines, which is a stark example of what we are talking about. We virtually know who the killers are. We know how journalists have been murdered and what butchery has taken place, but no action is taken. When defendants are brought to court, they are not the real defendants, and the people who motivated or employed the killers are never prosecuted. We should expose such rogue regimes for their attacks on journalists, and the international family should isolate them.

Somalia has also been mentioned, and I pay tribute to the Foreign Office for the work it has done to ensure that we secure the best protection we can for journalists. One issue there, however, is that the secretary of the National Union of Somali Journalists was murdered. We are playing an increasing role in providing assistance to Somalia, and we are developing the country and investing in it to ensure that we bring peace and security to the Somali people. Whatever governmental systems are established, however, we need to embed in Somali culture the critical role that journalists play both in developing democracy and as one of its foundations. We need to embed in the Somali culture and system of government a respect for journalists, as well as protections for freedom of speech, freedom of journalism and democratic expression.

I want our Government to stand up on this issue. There is not a lack of political will, but we need to tell the rest of the world, “If no one else will, we are going be the country that protects journalists and puts this issue on the agenda whenever we can. We are going to be the country that makes sure that international bodies perform the roles set out in their statutes.” There are various protections for journalists in statute; the Geneva convention has been mentioned, and we have various UNESCO and UN directives. All the law is there, but it needs implementing. Our role is to shame international organisations into working alongside us to ensure that such statutes are implemented.

In addition, we must call out those regimes that murder and butcher journalists simply for reporting the truth. In that way, we can stand as a beacon of light on the issue and help to reduce the catalogue of death and murder that has gone on year after year. We were here five years ago, and I do not want to be here in another five years, after another 500 journalists have been killed. I do not want to see any more Marie Colvins, and I do not want to see any more disappearances.

Iran

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add,

‘supports the Government’s efforts to reach a peaceful, negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue through a combination of pressure in the form of robust sanctions, and engagement led by the E3+3 comprising the UK, US, France, Germany, China and Russia; and recognises the value of making clear to Iran that all options for addressing the issue remain on the table.’.

I have a genuine respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). It is courageous sometimes to put forward a view that may have very little support, but as I listened to his speech, I could not but irresistibly be reminded of the remark that was made about a Minister in the 1930s, who had the reputation of being very logical. It was said of him that starting from a false premise he had moved inexorably to the wrong conclusion. I say to my hon. Friend in all honesty that I feel that he is in that situation.

Of course, we all want to see a peaceful resolution of this dispute by negotiation. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a powerful case to see if we can have a normalisation of relations between the United States and Iran, but it takes the two to have such a negotiation, and, as he himself conceded, when President Obama put forward such a proposal, it was rejected in Tehran. There is no evidence that Tehran has changed its position. If it has changed it, it would be very easy for it to say so.

I want to go straight to the question raised in the motion rather than to the wider issues involved, and that is whether there is a powerful or persuasive argument at this moment in time for renouncing the use of force. I presume my hon. Friend means not by the United Kingdom, but by the west—the international community in general. I believe he is profoundly wrong for three reasons. First, if the United States—the key country in this regard—the west and the international community renounced the use of force at this stage, I believe that Israel would be more likely to decide to act unilaterally. The Israelis know perfectly well that their military capability is far less than that of the United States and that the Americans, with their cruise missiles, bunker-busting bombs and other capabilities, stand a much better chance of destroying or severely degrading Iran’s nuclear capability. As long as the United States has not ruled out that option, the Israelis are under much greater pressure to allow the negotiations the best possible opportunity to produce the desired result. If that option is removed from the table, particularly by the United States, the Israelis will say, “We are sorry, but sanctions are not working and the negotiations are going nowhere. Every week that passes creates a more dangerous Iran. If no one else will act, we will.” I say to my hon. Friend that, for anyone who understands the Israeli position, this is not scaremongering, but the most likely consequence.

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

If the Israelis do act unilaterally, what sanctions should be applied to them?

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

The Israelis acted unilaterally against Iraq when they removed the Osirak reactor, and both the western world and the Arab world breathed a huge sign of relief. It would ultimately depend on how successful the Israelis could be, and that is a separate question.

Secondly, this is inevitably an extraordinarily complex period of diplomacy and, as other hon. Members have noted, diplomacy requires maximum pressure. It requires carrots and sticks. To reduce unnecessarily the pressure we can apply would be to act fundamentally against our own interests. There are circumstances—very limited circumstances—when it is right to rule out the use of force in advance. Let me give an example, because it is a question of disproportionate responses. When Argentina occupied the Falkland Islands, some rather foolish people said, “The United Kingdom has a nuclear weapon, so why does it not just threaten Argentina that it will use it if it does not withdraw from the Falkland Islands?” The Government at the time rightly said that under no circumstances was that an option, because it would have been an incredibly disproportionate response, and that was of course the right position to take.

However, we are not in such a situation. When a country is contemplating acquiring nuclear weapons, as the rest of the world believes Iran is, even if my hon. Friend does not, and when we know that that would dramatically alter the geopolitical balance of power in the Gulf—the capability of producing a nuclear weapon in a few weeks is as serious as actually having one—that is a huge threat. We can debate whether it is a legitimate threat, but the possibility of using conventional force to destroy that capability in order to prevent the emergence of such a nuclear weapon state is not inherently unreasonable, extreme or irrational.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I join other Members in commending the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I say to him that being in a minority does not necessarily mean that someone is not right, and that when the House is unanimous, it is invariably wrong. I will support his motion.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I find it important when we have these debates to have a prologue condemning the theocratic regime in Iran. I am one of the Members who consistently table motions supporting human rights campaigns in Iran, most recently on the Tehran bus workers and on the persecution of the film director Panahi, whose release we have been successful in securing. I agree with the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I am fearful of again treading down the path that starts with rumours of weapons of mass destruction, goes on to sanctions, sabre-rattling and covert operations, and then develops a momentum that carries us into military action, death and destruction, and increased terrorism and instability. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) is not in his place, but I, too, worry about the approach whereby we try to negotiate peace by threatening war; it does not work that way.

Hon. Members need to be very clear about the decision that they take tonight. Those who vote against the motion and for the amendment will be sanctioning the threat of military action. In my view, if one threatens something, one has to ensure that one understands the full implications of acting on the threat, and I am not sure that there is clarity in the House about why this threat is being made. The notion of Iran being close to having nuclear weapons is open to doubt as there is no solid evidence, but as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay said, the issue is really about nuclear capability. Nuclear capability is a threat only if one believes that nuclear weapons will be used. Even in Israel, people do not believe that there will be a nuclear strike, and that is true of wise heads around the world. I cannot find any advisers in the US who are recommending to the President that action should take place on the basis of a nuclear threat. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have listened to some of the spokespeople in Israel. I have also listened to a former head of Mossad, Efraim Halevy, who said that it is all about scaremongering and that there is no threat to the state of Israel as a result of this supposed escalation.

Why are we being implicated in the threat of military action? First, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, the threat is based not on the danger of a military attack but of Iran becoming a regional superpower. At the moment, the implications of that are not, by any means, sufficient to justify the threat of military action. Secondly, there is the argument about nuclear proliferation. If we are anxious about nuclear proliferation, we have to start with the root cause, which is Israel illegally gaining nuclear weapons. Unless we attack that root cause, the issue will not go away. Thirdly, it is about Israel’s own domestic political agenda: the crisis atmosphere suits Netanyahu and the hawks who surround him.

Fourthly, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington said, we are being blackmailed by Israel to the effect that if we do not support military action, it will. After Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the midst of the global economic crisis, there is no appetite in the US for war. That is why the Americans sent General Martin Dempsey to Tel Aviv in January to let the Israelis know that there was no such appetite. It is now time for us to face down Israel and ask what sanctions we are willing to exercise against it if it seeks to threaten military action. I fear that the debate is gaining the momentum for a military strike, which will make matters worse, not better.

We are already at war by proxy in undermining the potential for peace and change in Iran. The sanctions are a siege of Iran. Its currency is collapsing, imports of grain staples are drying up, and people are becoming impoverished. That is not undermining the regime but hardening support for it, by giving it the excuse that an external enemy is causing the impoverishment and hunger. The covert military actions carried out by organisations and individuals who we now know, as a result of exposés in Der Spiegel, were trained by Mossad, have prompted more terrorism around the world through Iran-sponsored attacks in India, Thailand and elsewhere. The cyber-war that was launched under Stuxnet, with the worm or bug that was put out to undermine Iran’s industrial complexes, has provoked even more retaliation, which has undermined some of the ability of Iran’s freedom movement to communicate with the outside world. I would welcome information on that extremely complicated cyber-attack. Did Israel sponsor it or its development? Was GCHQ alerted to it?

The actions that have taken place have escalated the potential for conflict, and they are strengthening the hard-liners in Iran and hurting the Iranian people, who are desperate to throw off the yoke of that theocracy. The way forward was spelled out by our former ambassador, Richard Dalton, who said that we needed multilateral negotiations to secure a nuclear-free zone across the middle east. Unless we tackle the issue of Israel holding nuclear weapons, we cannot confront Iran sensibly or creatively.

I reiterate that we cannot negotiate peace by threatening war, and I fear that we are again on a path that we have witnessed time and again in the House. We are threatening military action, which gains momentum that results in loss of life, including the loss of British soldiers and military personnel.

EU Sanctions (Iran)

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, our principal military contribution in the Gulf is the minehunters based in Bahrain. They are enormously respected in the region and are extremely expert in what they do. They are a very important part of our presence there.

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

There have been reports and allegations that covert military operations have already taken place in Iran, with bombings and assassinations. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the UK Government and the UK are not involved in the operations and that they do not support such intervention by foreign forces?

[Mr Hague]

We are not involved in, and we do not support, assassinations. Beyond that I do not comment on intelligence matters.

Human Rights on the Indian Subcontinent

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I want to mention two issues that have been raised with me by constituents. The first concerns India and the second Sri Lanka. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), I classify myself as a friend of India. I can do nothing else—I am married to a Goan and have only just come back from visiting my in-laws in Goa. I celebrate India’s success in recent years. I celebrate its politics. I witnessed the Anna Hazare campaign of Gandhian peaceful direct action to address corrupt politicians. I only wish that we had had such a thing here a few years ago—it might have helped when the Members’ expenses scandal was exposed. I also celebrate the nature of the way in which India is developing its economy. I wish that there was greater redistribution of wealth, but at least there is a dynamism in the economy itself.

In celebrating India’s progress, I feel that I have the right—as a friend of India—to draw attention to a continuing blemish on the Indian constitution. I am talking about the continued acceptance of the death penalty. There are currently 324 prisoners on death row in India, and although there has not been an execution for seven years, the political climate has changed, and there is a real fear of an imminent implementation of the death penalty. I want to use the Floor of the House to make an appeal on behalf of my constituents for the life of one person in particular, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, whose case I have raised over the years with a number of colleagues. Unfortunately, he is at imminent risk of execution in New Delhi.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that when I was looking through my annual report, I discovered that the issue on which I had the biggest postbag from my constituents was Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar’s threatened execution by the Indian Government?

[John McDonnell]

There is real consternation among the community in this country and across the world. This case has been taken up by Amnesty International as one of its urgent appeals across the world. As I said, I want to use this platform to appeal to the Indian Government and the Indian President to address the case of Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar and to consider the abolition of the death penalty itself.

Devinder’s mercy petition was rejected in May and his case is now moving towards the execution process. He was sentenced to death in August 2001 after being found guilty of involvement in a bomb attack in 1993 that tragically killed nine people. He was found guilty solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated confession that he made to the police and which he later retracted. He thought that it had been made under duress from the police. He was subsequently arrested under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act at New Delhi airport in January 1995. That Act has now been repealed and was criticised internationally and inside India for being incompatible with international standards for fair trials and fair arrests.

In March 2002, the death sentence against Devinder was upheld by the Supreme Court, but the opinion was divided, with two judges in favour and the senior judge coming down in favour of acquittal. In December 2002, a review was made of the judges’ decision, again resulting in a split decision. Usually, in such circumstances, a recommendation is made that the President accept the mercy petition, but unfortunately the petition was rejected in May this year, as I have said. Now, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar faces the death penalty.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I must declare an interest, in that I was born in India. I am therefore familiar with its constitutional system and traditions. My hon. Friend talked about the changes in the country, but does he also acknowledge that India’s main party and the Government have undertaken to reconsider Mr Bhullar’s case as a result of pressure from the international community? Does he agree that the Indian authorities responded to that pressure?

[John McDonnell]

That is exactly right. As a result of the campaign in India and the support that we and Amnesty International are giving it, there could be a breakthrough in this case that could lead to the abolition of the death penalty. There are clear concerns about the fairness of the trial, as well as about the eight-year delay in implementing a decision, which I believe constitutes cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. As a friend of India—as many of us here are—I therefore appeal to the Indian Government to think again, to allow the mercy petition to go ahead and to allow this person’s death sentence to be commuted, but also to consider the issue of the death penalty itself, which I see as a continuing blemish on the Indian constitution and political system.

[Barry Gardiner]

I was most concerned to hear my hon. Friend say that the only evidence against Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar was the confession that he had made in police custody. The Amnesty report, “A lawless law”, describing another case, records that

“the trial court dismissed two of the three outstanding charges against Sheikh noting that the only evidence against him was a confession made by him while in police custody which was inadmissible in court (in India, confessions made to the police are inadmissible as evidence because of fears that they may be coerced).”

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

[John McDonnell]

Yes, that is common practice, and it is usually taken into account when considering the mercy petition. That did not happen in this instance, however. There have been four recent cases in which mercy petitions have been rejected by the President. That is a change in practice that we have witnessed over the past seven or eight years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) suggested. There is a change of political climate on this issue in India at the moment, and I think that it is to the detriment of India. On that basis, pressure needs to be mounted in India and internationally, to address not only this individual case but the whole question of the abolition of the death penalty.

The issue of Sri Lanka and the treatment of the Tamils has also been raised with me. I want to associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) in this regard. A key issue is that, although the commission took place and various recommendations were made by the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, a number of them have not been implemented. For example, the simple recommendation that a list of names of those in detention should be published still has not been implemented. As a result, a number of my constituents are still anxious to find out what has happened to their families and where they are in detention.

When people are released from detention, despite reassurances that they will be assisted with resettlement, that is not happening in every case. Some are living in very distressing circumstances, but they are getting no assistance. Furthermore, there is a continuing problem of land having been taken over, particularly by the military, and reallocated to the majority community. In that way, members of the Tamil community are being displaced yet again as a result of the Government’s actions. I would welcome our own Minister putting pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to address those issues and to get back into negotiations with the Tamil National Alliance, which has withdrawn from the current negotiations because of the Government’s intransigence. In that way, we might be able achieve an atmosphere of peace and reconciliation again.

Conflict Prevention

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I apologise to you, Mr Turner, and to the Minister, because I will have to leave at 10.30. The group of MPs who represent constituencies around Heathrow airport have secured a ministerial meeting about night flights. Heathrow is in my constituency and it has taken us a long time to set up the meeting, so I will have to attend it. I apologise for that. I mean no discourtesy to the Minister, and I will read his response in Hansard.

I want to follow on from the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). I call him my right hon. Friend because we have worked together on this issue for a number of years. That does not mean that we have done so on an almost fortnightly basis—I do not send him stroppy letters saying that I will never speak to him again if he votes for a Government proposal—but we have worked closely on this issue over the years. Part of the genesis of this debate was a ten-minute rule Bill on establishing a ministry of peace that we sponsored some time ago—[Interruption.] I do not know why my phone is going off. I apologise, Mr Turner. I cannot turn the thing off. Sorry about that. The song is Bruno Mars, “I’d Catch a Grenade for You,” which is bizarrely appropriate. My phone is now switched off.

As I was saying, the genesis of this debate was a ten-minute rule Bill that we sponsored that called for a ministry of peace. The objective was to secure a debate on how we can make conflict prevention and resolution more central to Government policy making. My hon. Friends and I had a range of debates in this Chamber about different examples of conflict prevention around the world in southern Africa, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We basically picked the brains of people who had worked on the ground. Kai Brand-Jacobsen from the Peace Action, Training and Research Institute of Romania is a good example of that, but there were others as well. As I said, we heard from people from southern Africa and people from Northern Ireland from all sides. Following on from that, we formed the all-party group on conflict issues, which has worked successfully on an all-party basis and has brought in a range of expertise.

The stimulus for this debate is the Government’s expected publication of policy papers on the development of conflict prevention. We want to influence the longer-term decisions about investment in this field. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark said that the debate is more like a seminar. I suggest to the Minister that it would be extremely helpful if we had a ministerial seminar to which we invited all-party group members and other stakeholders from interested parties and organisations that have helped to brief us for the debate. If necessary, that debate could be held according to Chatham House rules. That does not matter, as long as we can have a free and flowing discussion about where we go from here on this important subject.

When we had the original debate, we set out a number of key factors that needed to be put in place if we were to make conflict prevention and resolution an integral part of Government policy making. The first factor is obviously political will. The atmosphere has changed dramatically as a result of our experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. There is much more of a political will desperately to seek conflict prevention solutions and resolution at the earliest opportunity. As my right hon. Friend said, during the original debate we argued that such an approach is a cost-effective mechanism of intervening. We have proved that point time and again. Therefore, there is political will on all sides to develop conflict prevention as an integral part of Government policy.

The second element is the need for structure within Government. Under the previous Government, we had a major breakthrough with the establishment of a conflict pool. Departments such as the Treasury, DFID, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence were brought together to work with each other on not just the disbursement of resources, but the development of expertise in Government and the investment of resources in concrete projects. There is a need to consider the structure of Government again. I am pleased that the Stabilisation Unit is in existence and will continue, but I note that Richard Teuten, formerly the head of the Stabilisation Unit, and Daniel Korski, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and former deputy head of the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Unit, which evolved into the Stabilisation Unit, are recommending that we bring elements dealt within the FCO within the remit of the Stabilisation Unit. They also recommend that we review the structure within Government, so that it is strengthened and there is a more direct and authoritative lead within Government policy making.

I also welcome the suggestion that we have a named Minister dealing with the issue. I do not in any way wish to make the post grandiose but, of course, the Minister would be accountable to Parliament and would play a key role in co-ordinating other Departments. It is important symbolically to state that we are about conflict prevention and resolution, and that we give the matter such importance that a ministerial title is given to such work.

The other ingredients are obviously expertise and engagement, which have been mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark raised the issue of ensuring that we learn from experience elsewhere. We have argued for some time that there should be open and transparent access to such information within Government, and that we should establish a database of the experiences of conflict prevention and resolution across the world. That would feed into the ongoing debate about what works, what does not work and how we can learn those lessons.

We have been briefed in advance of this debate about the global peace-building strategies that are taking place, particularly in relation to 14P. That initiative ensures that civil society fully participates in the peace-building initiatives within countries and works with Government, across the world. We have given examples of the conferences that are planned in Ghana, Kenya and elsewhere. The Government may well want to consider the practices that are taking place as a result of that initiative and how the Government can add their weight and support to such programmes.

One of the other ingredients that we have suggested, which has come from the practices that have been demonstrably successful elsewhere, is the need to ensure that we have some structure for stakeholder engagement within this country. There should be some form of stakeholder panel through which we can draw in external expertise and advocates for peace within our society.

[Simon Hughes]

Just for the record, may I correct the hon. Gentleman? The organisation he is referring to is “I”4P—Interactions for Peace. I just want to ensure that, when people read the debate, they know what we are talking about.

[John McDonnell]

That is what comes from reading it and hearing it. I was trying to work out what 14P stands for. I have read all the briefing documents and could not understand it. I thank my right hon. Friend for that—I am very grateful.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

This is an education.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

It is.

The key issue around the stakeholder panel is that it would give stakeholders the opportunity to advise the Government on what they need in terms of support for civil society, particularly in terms of investing in the studying of peace techniques. It is also important to train peace-builders—that has happened elsewhere, but less so in this country—who can work on the ground, engage in peace initiatives around the world and come back and teach us the lessons we can learn as a result of that.

A further element is obviously the ingredient that relates to resources. I am grateful to the Government for maintaining the existing level of resources and the various initiatives that the previous Government pursued, which is a result of our winning the argument on the cost-effectiveness of that investment. As part of the Government’s consultation on future policy, it would be helpful if we talked to others about the real level of resources required in the future, particularly on the issues that my right hon. Friend has identified: the threat of climate change and whether that will result in further conflicts, and the issues around the continuing struggle for limited natural resources. Those matters are not necessarily always related to climate change itself. That would give us the opportunity to build up a level of information and knowledge that we can discuss with the Treasury and in Government more widely on behalf of the Minister who will eventually be responsible for conflict prevention. We need to argue our corner and ensure that a stable supply of resources is put into this field over time.

A further element is accountability. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned parliamentary accountability. It is absolutely critical that we come back here regularly and have parliamentary debates on the matter. It would be more valuable if that were instituted by the Government in Government time, because that would demonstrate the seriousness of the Government’s commitment to this field of activity. The onus is on the Government and all of us to encourage a wider stakeholder debate and to take the debate on our role in conflict prevention and resolution to the country. In that way, we can engender more support within our communities for investment in this field. I do not want to get into the debate we have had with DFID about spending more of our resources in this country than abroad, but we must win the argument again: investment in conflict resolution and prevention is in the interests of us all and, in the long term, will save resources for our country as well.

More specifically, one element that we have always emphasised in debate is that we will further the cause of conflict prevention and resolution, and of peace overall, if we tackle the issue of the arms trade and the role of our country in it. The Government have a critical role to play in the negotiations for the next UN arms trade treaty in 2012. I would welcome the Government’s undertaking to have a full and thorough debate in Parliament and the wider community about how to construct that treaty so that we can engender support for it across the globe, but in this country in particular. That means, if we are to play our full role in combating conflicts resulting from the proliferation of weapons throughout the world, acknowledging that this country’s involvement in the arms trade must be reduced and eventually eliminated. That would throw up a whole range of issues—the impact on jobs and employment—which means we must have a serious discussion about conversion policies, allowing real arguments to stand up for those individuals and communities currently dependent on the arms trade.

An urgent matter at the moment is what is happening to the Nuba people in Sudan. In my constituency is a group called the Nuba Democratic Forum, consisting of refugees from that area of the world who have come to this country and have campaigned consistently over a number of years to ensure that the Nuba people can at least live in peace and at some level of decency if not prosperity. As the Minister is aware, the Sudanese Government have sent troops in, and there has been heavy artillery and aerial bombardment in the Nuba mountains, resulting in hundreds of thousands of people being displaced. The word coming back to families in my constituency is of appalling suffering, with a lack of water, food and shelter. I urge the Government to step up the application of pressure on the Sudanese Government, working with the US and through international bodies, to end the conflict and now, just as importantly, to secure humanitarian aid and access to it in that area. Although the world’s attention is not on the area at the moment, it will be soon because of the immense human suffering that will be played out if we do not act swiftly.

A wider debate could be had on conflict prevention and resolution, which is why I would welcome a ministerial seminar. Climate change has an impact and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said—globalisation and the continuing exploitation of the developing world are key. In addition, a new focus which we need to discuss is the use of sovereign funds in the developing world, to extract natural resources and to exploit individual communities. If we do not address that major agenda, it will be a new source of conflict and division in society, and globally.

Britain is known for its military and imperial history. We now have a real opportunity for Britain to be great again; it could be great as a world leader in securing peace. The development of Government policy—in cross-party partnership—on conflict prevention and resolution could make a major contribution to enhancing the status of this country in the eyes of the world as a peace-builder, rather than as a country that engages in wars and conflicts.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evennett]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will note it and take it back to the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers.

The Government’s tourism policy is an important long-term strategy that will help the tourism industry to develop further and capitalise on its strengths. I welcome the establishment of the £100 million marketing fund and its ambitious aim of attracting 4 million extra visitors to the UK over the next four years. If that can be achieved, there could be substantial economic benefits of some £2 billion, with the possibility of some 50,000 new jobs being created. That is an excellent example of how Government and the private sector can work together for the benefit of our whole country.

I was rather disappointed to learn that only one fifth of the population take breaks of four nights or more in this country. If more people could be encouraged to go on holiday in the UK, to match the number holidaying abroad, £2 billion more could be generated for the tourist industry, and some 37,000 more jobs could be created. That would be a real benefit to our economy, and I believe it would be enjoyable for all those taking part. I still think that Britain is best for tourists and for holidays.

I hope that Government policy is not just about bigger towns and cities. I should like to encourage more domestic and international visitors to come to my borough of Bexley, to enjoy our historic, cultural and entertainment facilities. For a start, there is Danson House, in my constituency, a grade I listed Georgian building that was purchased by Sir John Boyd in 1753 but not completed until 1766. The principal architect was the highly regarded Sir Robert Taylor, who was involved in the design of many significant buildings, such as the Bank of England. The site was landscaped by Nathaniel Richmond, who was once Capability Brown’s assistant.

When the house was purchased by English Heritage in 1995, it was in a dilapidated state, as it had regrettably been allowed to deteriorate. English Heritage’s investment, in partnership with the Bexley Heritage Trust, has been invaluable, and both must be commended for their work to enable the house to be opened to the public. Visiting it is a fantastic experience, and I recommend it.

I also recommend that visitors walk around the magnificent Danson park grounds. With the lake, the conversion of the stables into a pub, the investment in new play facilities and the refurbishment of the Boathouse restaurant, it has won multiple awards, and I believe it is the best park in London. In fact, it recently received the gold award for safety.

A short walk from there will take visitors to the Red House, the one-time home of the artist, textile designer and writer William Morris.

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

A socialist.

[Mr Evennett]

He was, but he did good work as well in a different area.

The Red House was Philip Webb’s first building as an independent architect, and it was completed in 1860. It featured ceiling paintings and wall hangings by Morris and furniture painted by Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and it is a fantastic experience. It was purchased by the National Trust in 2003, and I recently had the pleasure of touring the house with its new manager, James Breslin. I am confident that the National Trust will ensure that it remains open for people to enjoy for years to come. It is another gem in suburban Bexleyheath.

Another historic property in my constituency that is open to the public is a grade I listed building and former stately home called Hall Place, which is part-Tudor and part-Jacobean and has fantastic gardens. Extensive work has recently been undertaken to ensure that it can be open for all to enjoy. I have been to a number of functions there, and the sense of history is incredible and the mixed architecture impressive and interesting.

There is also the beautiful and historic church of St Paulinus in Crayford. It was built in the 12th century, but there is evidence that there has been a church there for more than 1,000 years. It is located at the top of Crayford hill, on the mediaeval route to the continent, and pilgrims stopped there on the way to Canterbury for respite and care. The church is the burial place of Elizabeth Shovell, the former wife of Sir Cloudesley Shovell, who was Admiral of the Fleet during the reign of Queen Anne. The former Surrey and England cricketer John Shuter is also buried there. Shuter once opened an innings with the legendary W. G. Grace, and his grave has recently been restored and rededicated with the help of the Friends of St Paulinus Church, Bexley cricket club and Surrey county cricket club. The living churchyard is a place of peace and tranquillity among the bustle of suburban Crayford.

In the same century in which St Paulinus was built, Lesnes abbey, in the north of our borough, was founded by Richard de Luci. It has been suggested that it was built as penance for the murder of Thomas à Becket, in which de Luci was involved. The abbey ruins are located in Lesnes abbey woods and are worth a visit.

Bexley has an awful lot to offer tourists both domestic and from abroad. I have highlighted just a few reasons for a visit, and I believe that we should develop tourism in the suburbs. It is also one of the greenest boroughs in London, with many small parks and green spaces such as Martens Grove and Bursted woods. The Erith marshes and the Crayford marshlands can be used for birdwatching, and people can walk along the River Cray. Bexleyheath Broadway offers civilised shopping, and there are quality hotels, such as the Marriott, restaurants—Assos in Crayford is a particular favourite of mine—and pubs. We have small theatres, popular sports clubs such as Welling United football club, the Europa gym and Crayford greyhound track. It is a great place to come, and I urge my colleagues and friends in the House to visit.

There is much to do in my constituency and my borough, but importantly, I welcome what the Government are doing to encourage tourism nationally. It is a very important industry, but it is also an important facility for creating jobs—and for having a good time. I welcome what the Government are doing, but I urge them to consider the suburbs, because there is a lot going on there that is worth visiting as a tourist.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I wish to discuss the threat to heritage buildings in my constituency. Two months ago, a planning application to build a large hotel development encompassing a 500-year-old listed building, the Dower house, in the village of Harlington, was refused by the London borough of Hillingdon’s planning committee. Two weeks ago, the Dower house was consumed by fire and the police are investigating a suspected arson attack. This is just another example of what feels like the almost industrial-scale destruction of heritage buildings in my constituency.

We all value a sense of community where we live and a sense of belonging, and part of that sense of community is about valuing our local heritage. Local buildings all tell their story of how our communities developed, and are cherished for their architectural beauty and histories— the stories they tell us. This country has a proud history of protecting its national heritage buildings and sites, and I pay tribute to the work of English Heritage and bodies such as the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and the National Trust. But the battle to save our heritage is now being fought out ferociously in the suburbs of our cities and towns; it is the battle for local heritage buildings. These buildings are often unheralded and unsung wonders that lift our hearts when we discover them and their histories.

Although valued by local people, local heritage buildings, especially those in London suburbs such as mine, are being hit by a tsunami of urban sprawl and intensive pressure from property development. In my area, many of those buildings are still just about standing as beacons of beauty and historical interest, but they are at severe risk, as listed by English Heritage, from developers and neglect by their owners, and they are vulnerable to council asset-stripping sales or a lack of public investment.

I wish to cite three examples, in addition to Dower house, the first of which is the Harmondsworth great barn. The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings described it as perhaps the greatest surviving mediaeval barn in the country, and John Betjeman dubbed it the “cathedral of Middlesex”. When its owner went into administration a number of years ago, the local council unfortunately failed to purchase it for £1 and it passed into the ownership of a Mr Robert Noonan. He owns it through a company called Harmondsworth Barn Ltd, based in Gibraltar. Under his ownership the barn has been neglected, and English Heritage now judges it to be in a poor condition. We have established the Friends of Harmondsworth Barn, and as a result of much effort and lobbying by local people, English Heritage has undertaken basic works to protect the barn, but is seeking a refund in the courts from its existing owners. English Heritage has put the barn on its at-risk register and we fear that, having saved the barn from a third runway, we could lose it as a result of neglect by its owner.

My second example is Benlow works, a beautiful building visible from the railway in Hayes. It is the symbol of our local industrial heritage. It was the place where the Orchestrelle factory was; this is where people built the “Aeolian” organ players. It is a grade II listed building but it is in a sorry state of neglect and English Heritage has listed it as at risk. Our only information on the owner is that the building belongs to the Freshwater Group of Companies in Shaftesbury avenue, London, but the council and English Heritage have failed to get any response from the owners to a request to improve the building, despite offers of support, including an offer of a significant grant to refurbish the building.

My third example is Golden Crescent library, a lovely building originally built by Mrs Emily Shackle in the late 19th century as a mission hall in memory of her late husband. Middlesex county council opened it as a local library in 1933 and it served generations of my constituents until last year, when Hillingdon borough council closed the library and opened a new one. Despite promises to preserve the older, listed building for community use, it is now to be sold off for development as flats and most of the building is to be demolished. The façade may remain but we will, unfortunately, lose the cherished building.

I have given just a few examples of heritage buildings at risk in my area. Our community has tried everything to protect our heritage. Working with the excellent council officers Charmian Baker, Sarah Harper and Nairita Chakraborty, two years ago I convened a local community conference to discuss our local heritage. Local residents have gone out to map and research the buildings and sites to update the council’s heritage list. We have set up the Hayes and Harlington Conservation Panel, as well as friends groups for each of the buildings under threat. But despite all this we are still under attack, and I fear that we are, at times, fighting a losing battle.

My appeal is therefore for assistance at all levels of government and from other agencies that could become involved. First, I appeal to the Minister for an urgent meeting to discuss the heritage sites in my constituency, because I fear that without urgent intervention we may lose some wonderful buildings. I fear the cuts of 30% that English Heritage faces, given that more than 400 buildings are at risk in London, but I appeal to English Heritage to refocus on the London suburbs such as Hayes and Harlington. My appeal to the local council is for it to stop asset stripping and to work with the local community to protect our heritage buildings. My appeal to the owners of these buildings, particularly those I have named, is for them to contact me and work with our local community to preserve these buildings. We need powers, resources and co-operation from all levels of government and society if we are to preserve our local heritage. Once demolished, such buildings are lost for ever for future generations. We cannot let this happen.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Middle East and North Africa

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I hope the policy as I have set it out is very clear about the Government’s understanding of what is legal under the UN resolutions and about what we are doing, which is different from going the whole way under the resolutions towards arming civilians and the opposition in certain circumstances. We have not taken the decision to do that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his letter to my hon. Friend. We are giving a great deal of other assistance. We should remember that what the United Kingdom is doing as regards the deployment of the Royal Air Force and its military action over the past five weeks, which has potentially saved the lives of hundreds or thousands of people, is a greater help to the civilians of Libya than we can provide to them in any other way.

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

As we have seen in the House today, to many outside this House Britain’s intervention in Libya looks like a blood-soaked political shambles. As we have moved from the protection of civilians to regime change, promises of no boots on the ground have been undermined by the presence of advisers’ boots on the ground. Now a limited intervention has moved to being a long-haul engagement. Have the Government given any consideration whatsoever to conflict resolution and taking up the offers from other countries of mediation to secure a peaceful settlement?

[Mr Hague]

Attempts at mediation by other countries so far have run into the problem of Colonel Gaddafi’s refusal to depart. Without that departure, it is hard to see a solution being arrived at in Libya. That is the difficulty. We have agreed in the contact group that it is primarily for the UN special envoy, Mr Khatib, to take forward the work of trying to search for a political settlement—that is absolutely what the UN special envoy is for. We have in no way lost sight of that aim, but it will require a genuine ceasefire, which seems also to require the departure of Colonel Gaddafi. The hon. Gentleman speaks of a blood-soaked result to what we have been doing, but there really would have been a blood-soaked result had we done nothing five weeks ago, allowing Benghazi to be overrun, thousands of people to be killed and tens of thousands to be driven towards the border. That would have been a blood-soaked result, and I think that was the policy that the hon. Gentleman favoured.