Capital Punishment (Caribbean)

HC Deb 23 June 1999 vol 333 cc1089-108

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

9.33 am

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to raise this issue in the House today, Madam Speaker, during a period of particular crisis caused by the hangings that have taken place in Trinidad and Tobago and the possibility of a large number of hangings in other parts of the Caribbean.

I have always been strongly opposed to capital punishment, but this is not just about capital punishment and the hanging of people who may or may not be guilty because the process of justice is not what it ought to be in some Caribbean countries. It is about human rights. I am not just a British Member of Parliament with not much else to do poking his nose into the affairs of other sovereign countries. Many people and organisations have expressed deep concern and sought to intervene in the attempts to carry out—and now, sadly, the carrying out of—executions in the Caribbean. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has condemned Jamaica. One of Her Majesty's inspectors of prisons went there and reported that the prison conditions were the worst that he had ever seen. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I have visited Ministers and the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, who expressed his concern and told us of how he had sought to intervene. These are matters of universal concern to all who are troubled by the human rights records of several countries.

At their Edinburgh meeting in October 1997, the Commonwealth Heads of Government reaffirmed their commitment to the fundamental values of the Commonwealth … and emphasised that democracy, good governance, sustainable development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms were interdependent and mutually reinforcing. I am sorry to say that a considerable number of those who signed that communiqué did so hypocritically, because they are not maintaining such standards in their country. The situation in Jamaica and Trinidad is particularly troubling. The hypocrisy involved in the way in which the matters are dealt with is almost as troubling. For example, Caribbean Justice, which is working hard on the issues, told me that because approximately 30 per cent. of the population of Trinidad and Tobago is Catholic and the Catholic Church there is opposed to the death penalty, the executions earlier this month were timed to avoid the feast of Corpus Christi. I do not know why the Government bothered.

I shall use one case as an example of the hypocrisy and violation of human rights in Caribbean countries. Anthony Briggs was due to be hanged yesterday in Trinidad. I have made inquiries about what has happened in that case. On Sunday 20 June an Associated Press report said:

The Trinidad and Tobago Appeals Court of Appeals agreed Saturday with a lower judge's ruling that killer Anthony Briggs' motion to avoid execution was 'plainly hopeless, bound to fail."' The report went on: On Friday, his lawyers appealed, saying he still had a petition pending before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. I shall return to that body later. The report continued: Judge Nolan Bereaux said at midnight Friday there was no evidence that the appeal was ever made. 'I thus rule the constitutional motion is plainly hopeless, bound to fail.' he ruled. 'It is an abuse of process and it is frivolous and vexatious, and I refuse the application for a stay.' The appeals court, headed by Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide, agreed several hours later that Mr. Briggs should hang.

Mr. Briggs is one of between 70 and 100 people on death row in Trinidad, which has a population of just over 1 million. It is as though there were 5,000 people on death row in this country.

The next day, an agency report said: Killer Anthony Briggs got a temporary stay of execution from the British Privy Council Monday, one day before he was scheduled to be executed. The Privy Council … said it would give a temporary stay of execution until a date next month when it will hear full arguments. The report continued: Lawyers representing Briggs said an order imposed on the Trinidad and Tobago government last year by the Inter-American Human Rights Court was never lifted. The order was imposed following moves by the government to hang Briggs who had a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission ruled on the petition in March and recommended to the government that Briggs be paid compensation or be considered for either an early release or commutation of his death sentence. The Commission said that Briggs had remained in jail too long before he went on trial for the 1992 murder of Shammi Ramkissoon. The courts in Trinidad were perfectly ready to authorise the execution of Mr. Briggs. Indeed, if they had had their way, they would have executed him even though the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights said that he should be paid compensation and released. That is what I am dealing with in today's debate; it is not simply some kind of bleeding-heart opposition to capital punishment, although I admit that I am strongly opposed to it.

There are other examples. The last hanging in Trinidad was in 1994 when a man called Dan Ashby was hanged while the Privy Council was considering his case.

I have worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South on issues relating to capital punishment in the Caribbean for many years. A number of men on death row in Jamaica took to writing to me. Some of them have been on death row for nearly 20 years. They started there as young men and have reached middle age while waiting on death row.

Until the Pratt and Morgan ruling by the Privy Council, there were some 270 people on death row in Jamaica. That is another example of the violation of human rights.

The Pratt and Morgan ruling said that keeping men on death row for more than five years was cruel and inhuman treatment. When I went to Jamaica, I met the Governor General, who said that men on death row should be executed or released.

After the Pratt and Morgan ruling, the number of people on death row in Jamaica was gradually reduced, though not as speedily as it should have been in accordance with the Privy Council ruling.

I went to Jamaica and visited all the prisons in Kingston where I met the men who had been writing to me. I was appalled, not only by the abominable conditions, especially on death row, but by the way in which those in charge of the prison conducted themselves. When I was talking to two of the men who had been writing to me, the man who was in charge of prisons and who had insisted on accompanying me to all my meetings was abusive to them in my presence. That led me to wonder how they were treated when not in the presence of a visiting British Member of Parliament, given their treatment when I was actually there.

The conditions on death row in particular were unspeakable. Prisoners have no furniture and no eating implements. They have a theoretical short exercise period which to a considerable degree is not observed, so they rarely see daylight because there is no lighting in their tiny cells. As a result, they have eye problems, but they are denied access to a doctor. Their only access to any hygiene is a stand pipe outside the death row block, which they have to use for washing and cleaning food. The conditions in other prisons, where people are not being held ready for eventual execution, though not quite as bad, are still dreadful.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, who has also had correspondence with people on death row, told me what I had already guessed—that those on death row had been made to clean the place up before I arrived. If that was what it was like when it was cleaned up, I shudder to think what it was like when there were no visitors.

Like others, I was rather complacent in believing that hangings would not be resumed in the Caribbean. I thought that the saga would continue and that many would be held in intolerable conditions but not executed. Trinidad has shown that that complacency was totally unjustified and we now hear reports that Jamaica, where there are still some 50 men on death row, is preparing to conduct hangings.

It was reported in The Independent yesterday, that Percival Patterson, the Jamaican Prime Minister, said during a visit to Canada that the Trinidad nine"— there were nine executions there— had set an important precedent. The zeal for hanging has been stimulated by what has taken place in Trinidad.

Trinidad and Jamaica are not the only countries involved. It is difficult to find the exact figures, but it appears that there are 300 people on death row in Caribbean countries. Helping them presents great problems because there is very little opportunity for pro bono work by lawyers in those countries. There are some very brave lawyers, one of whom I met when I was in Jamaica.

The Commonwealth Caribbean death penalty project, which is one of a few projects that provide help for men on death row, has run out of funds. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, whose work on this matter I very much respect, asking whether overseas development funds could be provided. She wrote back saying that it was not within the scope of her Department. I very much hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), whose answers to parliamentary questions show his concern, will be able to say that at least some finance will be made available for that project.

There are several eminent firms of solicitors in London who do pro bono work for death row prisoners in the Caribbean. I recently gave an affidavit to one who was seeking to assist a death row prisoner. I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: when firms like Simons Muirhead and Burton and Clifford Chance do pro bono work, it demonstrates that it is a matter not simply of nosey parker Members of Parliament interfering, but of important areas of concern to everyone who cares about the rule of law.

I received a letter from Simons Muirhead and Burton describing the problems of those on death row or in Jamaican prisons relating to access to legal advice. It said: There are approximately 300 prisoners under sentence of death in the Caribbean. Legal aid is not available to enable such prisoners to appeal against conviction and sentence to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, nor is legal aid made available for domestic or international human rights challenges … Prisoners under sentence of death in the Caribbean do not have the financial resources to challenge their convictions at the JCPC, or to establish violations of their domestic or international human rights. There are very few lawyers in the Caribbean prepared to represent prisoners on a pro bono basis". I wish to pay tribute to the London firms and solicitors who are doing this work, which is difficult.

Any of us with constituents in jail will be well aware that there are large numbers of people in jail who claim their innocence—whether accurately or not. However, owing to the rough and ready systems of justice in these countries, not only are people who will have undoubtedly committed murder liable to be hanged after suffering bad conditions in prison, but it is quite likely that innocent people are suffering in the same way. After all, if we in this country can keep people in prison for 14 years who were wrongly found guilty of murder—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South at this point—I do not rule out that the same is likely to have happened in these countries.

All over the Caribbean, the reintroduction of hanging—or the danger of it—is prevalent. In Barbados, there is an intention to reintroduce hanging. Last year, St. Kitts had its first hanging since 1981. In the Bahamas, Trevor Fisher and Richard Woods were hanged on 15 October 1998, notwithstanding the fact that each had petitions pending to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming that their rights, enshrined under the American declaration on the rights and duties of man, had been violated. These were the first executions in the Bahamas for three years, and were carried out despite a démarche from the EU—which has been active on these matters—on both cases, and a request from the IACHR that the Government preserve their lives, pending its decision on the petitions submitted by the two men on 7 June 1996 and 28 August 1996 respectively. A recognised legal process was involved, but the hangings took place all the same.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South has been particularly concerned about the situation in Belize, and has been active on that matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, in a recent letter to me, said that she was working with Penal Reform International in Jamaica and Belize. That is another country causing deep concern.

Those countries are so keen to carry out hangings that they are revoking international agreements to do so. They are withdrawing from international bodies which provide recourse to the possibility of executions being prevented or postponed.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, until recently, Belize had a Lord Chief Justice who professed to hear messages from God?

Mr. Kaufman

I once had a chief constable who said the same thing for a while. It appears to have spread from one continent to another. One of the messages from God that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai was "Thou shalt not kill." There was no proviso in that commandment that it should exclude judicial killing.

Mr. Mullin

This Lord Chief Justice was hearing the opposite messages from God.

Mr. Kaufman

I cannot regard myself as the greatest expert on religion, but it seems to me that the ten commandments were unequivocal.

Governments in the Caribbean are withdrawing from international agreements to carry out hangings. On 16 December last year, Guyana informed the United Nations Secretary-General of its withdrawal as a party to the optional protocol to the international convention on civil and political rights. Like Trinidad and Tobago, it then immediately reacceded, with a reservation purporting to exclude the UN Human Rights Committee from considering petitions brought by people under sentence of death relating to the capital proceedings against them. This course of action was instigated following the decision earlier in the year by the Human Rights Committee on a petition brought by two men under sentence of death.

The Human Rights Committee concluded that both men had been deprived of a fair trial and thus, if executed, would be arbitrarily deprived of their lives. It recommended not only that their death sentences be commuted, but that they should be released. The Guyanan Government said that they would not follow the recommendation. If one does not like a verdict, get rid of the judge—that appears to be their attitude.

Trinidad and Tobago has done the same thing. The Government set strict timetables for the Human Rights Committee and the IACHR to consider petitions made on behalf of people under sentence of death. In May 1998, Trinidad and Tobago notified the secretary general of the Organisation of American States of its intention to withdraw as a state party to the American convention on human rights, which came into force last month. That unprecedented step removed the obligation on the Government to guarantee the rights enshrined in the treaty to people within its jurisdiction.

Last August, Trinidad and Tobago's withdrawal from the optional protocol to the ICCPR became effective. Like other countries that are following that practice, Trinidad and Tobago immediately reacceded as a party to the optional protocol, with a reservation precluding the Human Rights Committee from considering any communications by a person under sentence of death relating to the capital proceedings against them. Jamaica has gone through the same kind of charade, and has paid no attention to requests by Her Majesty's Government to change that position.

We are not dealing with a zeal to hang, obnoxious though that is. We are dealing with deliberate violations of human rights and the rule of law. We are dealing with countries which, where their wish to violate human rights clashes with their international commitments, then withdraw from those commitments in order to be able to carry on with the hangings.

The Commonwealth has made statements about human rights to which these Governments have subscribed. There is to be another meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Durban in November. No doubt these countries will go through the same hypocritical charade and pay their respects to human rights in the communiqué with their fellow members of the Commonwealth—and will then go on violating human rights as they have done.

In Trinidad, one of the bodies entrusted with overriding human rights is called—almost hilariously—the mercy committee, which is chaired by the National Security Minister. It was the mercy committee that ordered the execution of Mr. Briggs, and it would have got away with executing Mr. Briggs if the Privy Council—which had authorised the hangings in Trinidad and Tobago—had not withdrawn that authorisation.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the firm stand that he has taken on this matter. When it became evident at the beginning of this month that hangings were to go ahead in Trinidad and Tobago, I telephoned my right hon. Friend's office and asked if it would communicate my concerns to the Government of Trinidad. Not only that, but my right hon. Friend wrote to me on 2 June saying: I, too was concerned that Trinidad and Tobago was considering resumption of executions after a de facto moratorium of five years. Together with our EU partners, we have made clear to the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on a number of occasions that we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Baroness Symons, as Minister responsible for our relations with the Caribbean, has followed up these representations by meetings with the High Commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago in London. Most recently, Baroness Symons spoke to the Minister of National Security"— he chairs the mercy committee— on 10 May while he was visiting Britain and in repeating our abolitionist views raised the case of Dole Chadee and his associates"— the men who were hanged. My right hon. Friend continued: On 17 May, after these men had lost their most recent appeal, the UK joined other EU partners in démarching the Government of Trinidad and Tobago once again in Port of Spain. If the executions of Dole Chadee and his associates do go ahead I will be pressing for a public statement by the EU as we did recently when the Philippines resumed executions. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the firm and clear position he has taken and for the firm and clear position taken by the European Union.

What those countries say to persons such as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me, and institutions such as the EU, the UNCHR, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and all the others, is, "Keep your nose out of our business. We are sovereign countries and we can do as we like. You are intruding on our sovereignty by saying such things." I suppose that there is an argument for that, but they cheerfully allow their sovereignty to be intruded on in other ways. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development provided me with details of the financial aid being provided by this country and the EU to Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean which have the death penalty. It is significant that the two countries which receive by far the greatest aid are Trinidad and Tobago, which received £20.4 million in 1997, and Jamaica, which received £45.6 million.

It is of course countries in the Caribbean which have taken a strong stand in insisting on the retention of preferential treatment by the EU for, in particular, their bananas. Our Government have responded to that. If people will not respond to appeals to their better nature, or if they do not have a better nature, it seems to me that we should re-examine the generosity with which we deal with some of their requests for help. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development might argue that it would not be fair to the people of the country to punish them for what their Governments do, but we are told by those Governments that they have overwhelming support from the people of their countries. Much as I dislike using such pressure, if that is the only kind of pressure we have, we should use it; and I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to do so.

Some of us in this House, together with lawyers and other outside agencies, have been a nuisance to the Governments involved for a long time. I intend to continue being as big a nuisance as I can be until we get them to acknowledge that human rights are universal. We have just been celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations declaration on human rights, article 5 of which states: No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. These countries are undoubtedly inflicting such treatment or punishment, and it is time they stopped.

10.4 am

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on achieving this Adjournment debate on what is a most important but often neglected subject. I also join him in commending the work of the pro bono solicitors in London who act without charge for the capital defendants before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

I also wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his promotion to the Front Bench and I look forward to many contributions from him on foreign policy matters. I am speaking from the Back Benches deliberately because the subject does not fall within my Front-Bench responsibilities, and also because I am speaking from a personal position as a long-time opponent of capital punishment. I have been an opponent since the first time I realised that such things went on, which was in the late 1950s or early 1960s, when I was about 7, 8 or 9 years old. The only exception is that the state must reserve to itself the ability to resort to the death penalty in time of war. However, this Parliament has taken that punishment away and, as I understand the position, we no longer have any form of capital punishment in this country.

Most Caribbean countries that used to be part of the British empire are now completely independent, although they are members of the Commonwealth and it must, therefore, be a matter for the people and Governments of those countries to make up their own minds about domestic criminal justice policy, subject to international convention obligations. I was concerned to learn from the right hon. Member for Gorton that several of those independent Caribbean states are resiling from their obligations under international conventions, albeit rejoining them under some sort of ruse. I deprecate that, but I am not sure what we can do about it—apart from the suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman—save to note it.

I made a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to three Caribbean states in the autumn of 1996, shortly before the election. I visited Dominica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. During my visit, I met politicians, lawyers and judges operating in the courts of the east Caribbean jurisdiction. I met the then acting chief justice of the east Caribbean, and I also met a retired chief justice of the east Caribbean who sits from time to time—at least, he did so then—as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council here in London.

The general rule is, as I discovered when I was in the Caribbean, that elected politicians tend to support the death penalty. It is popular and Governments who execute murderers have a good chance of getting re-elected. To be fair, it may also be the case that politicians believe that capital punishment is a just and proper way to punish serious criminals. It is another generalisation, but I observed that judges and lawyers tend to take a different view. They are broadly opposed to capital punishment, although obviously there are some exceptions, and they wish to keep the Privy Council as the final court of appeal.

The position among lawyers may be changing, as most lawyers in the Caribbean aged under 45 were not trained in London at the Inns of Court, but are trained and qualified in Caribbean law schools and universities. Some are also trained in the US and Canada. There is a difference in attitude towards links with the Privy Council, just as there is a difference in attitude towards the usefulness or otherwise of capital punishment.

It is not my intention this morning to discuss the role of the Privy Council as the court of final appeal. It is to draw attention to the poor facilities available to courts and lawyers in the Caribbean. There are very few law libraries. Lawyers often work alone or in small chambers, and lack proper facilities or books. The jurisdiction of the east Caribbean is huge, stretching from the northern boundaries of south America to the northern Caribbean.

The right hon. Member for Gorton made a stark point about the absence of legal aid. Most defendants charged with capital crimes are poor and many are addicted to drugs. They have no access to the high-quality lawyers whom big bank balances would command. There are as a result huge differences in the fire power available to the prosecution and the defence: prosecutors have the advantage of funding from the state, whereas defence counsel and defendants generally do not.

The problem identified to me by one senior judge was that he often heard advocates pleading and conducting trials on behalf of capital defendants without even an out-of-date copy of "Archbold", the standard text on criminal law in this country. To appear before any court here with an out-of-date textbook would be deemed negligent in the extreme, but to do so on behalf of a client at risk of his life with no text, not even an out-of-date one, and no law reports is appalling.

The judge to whom I spoke had to deal as fairly as he could with the cases before him. His practice was to return to his chambers at the end of a working day and do all the work himself. He would place himself in the defence counsel's position, look in his own library for the relevant authorities and principles, and reconstruct the defence case. He did that as a matter of duty, as he did not want to be responsible for being in charge of jungle justice—an expression that I do not use lightly.

The judge wanted the job done well, but that was impossible. He urged me to see what this country could do to increase or improve the level of assistance to the judicial systems of those Caribbean states. I made some inquiries of the previous Government when I returned, and discovered an organisation called Bookaid. With the assistance of Sir Nicholas Bonsor, one of the present Minister's predecessors in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I contacted that organisation to find out what could be done. I urge the Minister to encourage the work of Bookaid in sending out modern legal textbooks.

Assistance need not be confined to books, which tend to disintegrate in the Caribbean's humid climate, where many lawyers' offices and courts are not air conditioned. However, that does not mean that we can do nothing. Personal or collective access to the internet is available all over the world, and I urge the Government to do what they can to provide internet links. That would give lawyers and judges in the Caribbean direct access to legal judgments, precedents, textbooks and so on. Those resources are available in my chambers at the touch of a button, and they could be just as easily available in the Caribbean.

We complain, rightly, about some of the prison regimes in the United States and about how some states execute capital defendants who for many years have been lingering on death row. Some recent executions have been for crimes committed when the prisoner was under 18. Although we might have moral scruples about the justice system in the United States we have no moral responsibility for it, as that country has been independent for more than 200 years.

However, we have a moral responsibility to the Caribbean, which remained under our governance until relatively recently. We have a responsibility to ensure that the legal system, judges and lawyers are properly equipped to do justice.

The question of whether the Caribbean people require the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to remain as their final court of appeal is a separate matter. I urge the Government to do all that they can to ensure that books and access to legal knowledge are available as widely as possible to bolster the Caribbean justice system which, as the right hon. Member for Gorton rightly said, is from time to time questionable.

10.16 am

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

I shall make a shorter speech than I originally intended, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has summarised the issues with clarity and force. I shall confine myself to drawing the House's attention to a couple of quotations and asking some questions to which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, we have worked closely on this issue for a number of years. My interest arises from the pitiful letters that I began to receive from people on death row after the release of the Birmingham Six in April 1991. I receive letters from prisoners around the world, including many on death rows in the United States, but the most pitiful are from the Caribbean. I shall quote from one letter sent by a man in Trinidad who was on death row for more than 10 years before his sentence was commuted as a result of the Pratt and Morgan judgment of the Privy Council.

In a recent letter, the man wrote: I thought with the commutation of the death sentence I would have been given the opportunity to advance my education that would enable me to become a progressive and constructive human being so that, if and when I come out of prison, I will not have to return to the life that caused me to hurt other people to survive … Briefly, this is how I squander my days in prison … I share a cell with ten other inmates, the noise of the other inmates makes it difficult for me to sleep, read, pray or study properly. At 7 am the cell is opened. I am given butter, bread and coco water for breakfast. I then stand in an open yard hoping to get a shower. Around 10.30 am I receive rice and peas water, then I am locked back into the cell. Around 3 pm the cell is again opened and I receive supper of butter, bread and sugar water. My health has deteriorated badly. Brutality controls the prison. A few weeks ago a prisoner who was serving a life sentence was murdered by a prison officer … the deceased had lived 30 years of his life in prison … I am hoping that I will not be murdered by anyone in this institution. I continue to beg God to forgive me my sins and to forgive those who wrongfully treat me badly. That is just one of the many similar letters that I receive, and I decline to walk by on the other side of the road.

The other passage that I want to place on record comes from a distinguished Trinidadian lawyer. Several years ago, he told a BBC television programme: The legal aid system is a great barrier and a great handicap to persons on death row getting legal representation. It is very restricted … The maximum a lawyer gets if he does a legal aid matter is, I think, the equivalent of around £300. Based on that, you have very young lawyers who are sometimes very inexperienced dealing with capital cases. The lawyer went on to say that many capital cases are based on confessions to the police"— we are, or at least we used to be, familiar with that phenomenon— who do not have any real investigative machinery … You have situations where if people are just suspected, they are arrested. They are kept in police stations. They are made to sign confessions. Then you go before a jury in an environment in which you have a high crime rate, which is a lot of pressure on a jury system in a small country—and you have lawyers who are very inexperienced having to defend these people. You have a situation where the dice is loaded against the accused person. The lawyer who made those remarks was Mr. Ramesh Maharaj, now the Attorney-General of Trinidad and playing a leading role in the drive to remove safeguards such as the Privy Council and to speed up application of the death penalty. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that lawyers in the Caribbean tend to be against the death penalty because they know how convictions are achieved, while politicians tend to favour it because they know public opinion. Mr. Maharaj has been both lawyer and politician. As a lawyer, he was strongly against the death penalty. As a politician, he is strongly in favour of it.

A few weeks ago, Mr. Maharaj came to see me. He is charming and courteous, and he cheerfully admits to having reluctantly changed his mind on the death penalty because that is what the voters want. To me, he seems an acute example of a politician willing to do anything for votes. That phenomenon is hardly unique to Trinidad and Tobago, but as, in his case, it involves killing people, I find it particularly distasteful.

I shall conclude with three brief points, all touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton. First, we are not talking of far away countries over which we have little influence. We have a lot of influence with many Caribbean Governments, and we should exercise it. Belize—not strictly in the Caribbean, but greatly affected by what happens there—depends heavily on the United Kingdom to help to preserve democracy and to protect it from its neighbours. Belize also receives much aid and other assistance. I welcome the provision of such help, but as my right hon. Friend said, if such countries will accept that much interference with their sovereignty, they must not be surprised when we ask what happens in their jails.

When the high commissioner of Jamaica tells me that his country has a sovereign right to do what it wants, I accept that that is so. However, we have a sovereign right not to provide Jamaica with aid, trade preferences and debt relief. The Government are rightly committed to an ethical foreign policy, seeking to forge a clear connection between the countries that we choose to help and the degree of democracy and civilised behaviour in them. That principle should be applied forcefully in the Caribbean. It is time to make our minds up, because there will be a massive bout of hangings in the Caribbean if certain politicians have their way. We have given Jamaica and Trinidad enormous debt relief over the past year, despite the problems mentioned by my right hon. Friend. Perhaps we should be a little less generous.

Secondly, a two-tier court of appeal has been proposed, comprising a Caribbean court of appeal for death penalty cases—no doubt it will be expected to dispose of cases swiftly—and a civil court of appeal that would remain with the Privy Council. Politicians know that many international companies with which Caribbean countries do business would not accept a Caribbean court of appeal to deal with civil actions. They are anxious to retain the business, so they have sought a device that will enable them to hang as many people as possible as quickly as they can while preserving their commercial arrangements. I hope that we will have no truck with that two-tier idea. It is not the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I hope that he will pass on what I have said to his colleagues.

Finally, I hope that the Minister will express himself strongly against the recent decisions by Trinidad and Jamaica to opt out of the optional protocol of the international convention on political and civil rights. They have opted back in on everything except matters relating to the death penalty. Those decisions are a provocation, and I hope that we shall be robust against them.

I welcome the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton for arranging it.

10.26 am

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has done the House a great favour by raising this subject for debate. As it has developed, the debate has justified our allocating another occasion and rather more time to it. A series of complex issues has been raised, and the House ought to consider those issues at more leisure.

Capital punishment has caused me some anxiety in the recent past, not least because I feel discomfort—even repugnance—at the notion that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should still have a role when the United Kingdom has finally, once and for all, abolished the last few remaining instances in which the death penalty might be applied. I hope that I do not offend the right hon. Gentleman by saying that he has a personal Richter scale of language, but today the force of his argument and his calm and rational introduction were powerful. He did himself and the House a great deal of justice.

More than half the countries of the world retain the death penalty. Last year, four of them—China, Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States of America—accounted for 80 per cent. of all executions. Like the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), my opposition to the death penalty arises from conviction.

I entered professional practice in 1968, three years after the abolition, to all intents and purposes, of the death penalty. I never had the burden carried by others at the Bar—especially when legal aid was less freely available than it is today—of being engaged in what used to be called capital cases. However, I successfully prosecuted and unsuccessfully defended cases in the High Court in Scotland in which, but for the passing into law of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, capital punishment would have applied. Nothing in my experience persuaded me that my conviction that capital punishment was wrong required any revision.

At the time when their independence was gained, politicians of the newly independent countries of the West Indies opted to retain the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council because it provided legal and judicial expertise not available in their domestic legal systems. It was always envisaged that the time would come when that would no longer be so, and that those countries would eventually manage their legal systems without recourse to the United Kingdom.

The constitutions of the Caribbean countries provide that their legislatures can abolish the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by a constitutional amendment, usually requiring the approval of a two thirds majority. So the mechanism exists whereby those countries could, as it were, repatriate to themselves the responsibility that now rests with the Privy Council.

In recent times, some powerful arguments have been addressed as to whether that legal connection should be maintained. I commend to the House an article written by David Pannick, QC, in The Times of 15 June this year. It was a powerful article by someone whose reputation in these matters is very considerable indeed. He argues that independent nations should be encouraged to develop their own judicial, as well as their political, autonomy. He also argues that colonialism is still colonialism, no matter how benevolent its administration.

I found one passage of that article especially compelling. David Pannick states: Our senior judges are put in the unacceptable position of being asked to administer such rules. That is a reference back to the rules relating to capital punishment. He continues: They have responsibility but very limited power. It is now time for us to ask ourselves whether it is right that the Judicial Committee, and the distinguished judges who make up that committee, should continue to have the responsibility for determining issues in a form of punishment that is regarded by almost everyone in the United Kingdom as barbaric and which is one that we have expunged from our own legal system.

There is a paradox contained in the argument that the Judicial Committee should cease to have any responsibility, in that the risk might be that any influence that we in the United Kingdom have would be substantially diminished. As long as those appeals come before the Judicial Committee, it can be argued that there is a degree of influence. If we repatriate—if that expression is correct—that responsibility to the Caribbean itself and take the Judicial Committee out of the process, it could be argued by some that we would have even less influence than we have at present.

As I said when I began my remarks, I do not pretend for a moment that these are anything other than complex and difficult issues. However, as long as that responsibility remains vested in the Judicial Committee, this House cannot be regarded as exempt, or barred politically or in any other way, from passing judgment on Administrations in those countries that persist in the application of a punishment that we regard as wholly unnatural.

I was interested in the reference made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to the Attorney-General of Trinidad. The Attorney-General was recently quoted as saying that it is wrong for any country or group of countries to transplant their legal culture into the Caribbean. We respect their laws of punishment, and they must respect ours. Very well; but just as we respect their right to pass political comment on the nature of our system, they must, in turn, respect our right to do so as well.

This debate may well cause annoyance in some countries of the Caribbean, but as long as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council still has a legal responsibility for these matters, this House has a legitimate interest in them, and those countries cannot expect that we will be silent in the face of the continuing use of a punishment which people in this country find so repugnant.

10.34 am

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I share and associate myself with the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). During the few minutes available for my speech, I want to speak on a narrower point, but one that is of considerable concern. There is one residual responsibility for Ministers and for the House in respect of dependent territories, especially those in the rather peculiar position in which Bermuda stands on the issues that we are debating.

I refer to Bermuda because, although I hate to do so, I am briefly going down the ministerial memory lane. Rather poignantly and sadly, the last time—as I recall it—that a United Kingdom Minister made a decision that led to the execution of two people was the decision made in December 1977 by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Owen, to endorse, or approve, the execution of Burrows and Tacklyn, one of whom had been accused and found guilty of the murder of the then Governor of Bermuda, Sir Richard Sharples. It is sad to recall that last occasion on which a UK Minister made a decision that led to the execution of two people.

At that time, I was the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and have vivid memories of the incredibly difficult and awful decisions that were taken. Behind the scenes, painstaking discussions were held with Mr. Gibbon, the then Premier of Bermuda, to try to avoid that outcome. I remind the House that the flawed advice received by my right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary was that racial harmony, respect for law and order, and the security situation, would suffer … if a stay of execution were granted."—[Official Report, 5 December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1015.] As a result of the execution, a large part of Bermuda went up in flames; we had to send in British troops to restore law and order; and my right hon. Friend had to make a statement to the House on 5 December 1977.

I refer to those matters because, interestingly, capital punishment in our dependent territories—especially in respect to the position in Bermuda—is referred to in the White Paper on overseas territories that has just been published. As a result of those tumultuous events in Bermuda in 1977, the House approved an Order in Council that abolished the death penalty in the dependent territories. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South referred to Commonwealth countries and former colonies in the Caribbean where people are now being executed. When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up the debate, will he tell us what stance he will take on the issue of capital punishment in any future constitutional discussions with our remaining dependent territories in the Caribbean—if there is to be further constitutional development in those territories.

What is the position of Bermuda? As I understand it, Bermuda is excepted from the present Order in Council. Presumably, therefore, it remains possible for Bermudan courts to pass sentence of execution on people found guilty of murder. What will be the position? I hope that my hon. Friend will give us a clear statement of Ministers' views on that matter.

Where, inevitably, there is a residual responsibility, not only does such responsibility rest with the Judicial Committee, but it also falls on Ministers—as it did on me in the 1970s—because the final move for anyone threatened with the death penalty is to appeal for clemency to the Queen. There are usually huge appeals for clemency—as there were in the case of Burrows and Tacklyn, when a petition from Bermuda with 6,000 signatures arrived on ministerial desks. Ministers do become involved; it is not only a judicial matter, it becomes a highly sensitive political issue.

On another occasion, as a Minister I refused—and through me, the then Secretary of State refused—to approve the execution of a man in the British Virgin Islands. That led to a most serious situation, when large crowds gathered and put our governor under siege. We had to take appropriate action to safeguard the governor.

We all accept that in the Caribbean these issues are highly emotional, and sometimes they summon the demons from the deep. However, we must take a clear and principled stand. Certainly, in cases in which the British Government, British Ministers and this House retain a residual responsibility for those matters, I hope that we shall take a firm stand, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said. We must say that, however much we may respect the views and opinions of the peoples of our dependent territories, including Bermuda, when it comes to the death penalty and capital punishment, neither Ministers nor this House will support or approve it—as sadly, in 1977, we once did.

10.40 am

Mr. Archie Norman (Tunbridge Wells)

I too offer my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on raising this issue, and I commend other hon. Members—notably the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—for their outstanding contributions to the debate. I am very much in awe of the expertise and first-hand knowledge that they bring to bear, and I was swayed by some of the points that they made during the debate.

The concern raised in this debate is right and understandable. It is to do with the question not just of capital punishment but of human rights, prison conditions and several other matters mentioned by the right hon. Member for Gorton. There can be no defence for cases of miscarriage of justice or inadequate legal support. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned the Briggs case—to which the right hon. Gentleman also referred—and there can be no defence for the prison conditions to which he alluded.

It is important to reflect on the fact that views about capital punishment vary in the House—although apparently not among hon. Members assembled in the Chamber today. I share the convictions expressed by other hon. Members and their opposition to capital punishment. I have opposed it all my political life. It is important to note that we have always made capital punishment an issue of personal conscience and free vote in this country.

The real question at hand is whether, in adopting a foreign policy approach to this issue, there are solutions that, first, are likely to succeed and, secondly, can fit into a foreign policy framework that is consistent and sustainable. In both cases, the balance of judgment is very difficult. This is not an easy matter: it is not simply a question of our expressing our rightful moral concern about the issues involved.

Capital punishment has always been the subject of a free vote in the United Kingdom Parliament and we must appreciate that the Caribbean countries have noted our approach. We must remember that there is a broader context to this debate. There is widespread support in the Caribbean for the continuation of capital punishment. That is not to say that issues of human rights and the legal process are not important and valid, but popular support for capital punishment in the Caribbean is considerable and, according to recent polls, runs at between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. The issue is generally included in the election manifestos of most political parties in the Caribbean and the vast majority of elected politicians support it—perhaps for the reasons that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South mentioned. It is a fact that it is the democratic will of certain democratic countries that capital punishment should continue. We must therefore consider carefully the manner in which we raise the matter.

We must remember also that the number of people on death row and the high number of executions in Caribbean countries is due to a frightening increase in organised crime. That will affect the Caribbean people's perception of any comments that we may make about the issue. The social context in the Caribbean is very different from that which prevails in this country—that is perhaps obvious, but it is important to recognise that Caribbean countries are no longer idyllic island paradises that are unaffected by crime.

The number of people on death row in the Caribbean reflects, to some extent, the incidence of serious crime in those countries. There were 1,010 murders in Jamaica in 1997 compared with 748 in the United Kingdom, whose population is approximately 24 times as large. The murder rate in Jamaica is among the highest in the world, and even the Bahamas has a higher murder rate than the United States. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of murders are drugs related. This is serious, organised crime so it is understandable that the people of the Caribbean adopt a serious approach to tackling it.

Although they do nothing to mitigate the questions that have been raised about human rights and the legal process in the Caribbean, these are important background factors that should determine and inform our approach to influencing the situation. The increase in organised crime in the Caribbean is continuing at a frightening rate. Perhaps the Minister will explain how we can not only address questions of capital punishment and human rights but help those countries to deal with their crime problem, which lies at the heart of the issue.

As we are dealing with former colonies, it is important that our approach be informed by the background of attitudes in the Caribbean. The Caribbean Community and Common Market—CARICOM—has agreed to establish a Caribbean court of justice, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) mentioned, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that our role in the Caribbean's criminal system is coming to an end. There is thus a danger that our moral outrage will accelerate our diminishing influence. The Privy Council is already deeply unpopular in some quarters in the Caribbean. We have a long history of involvement in this area, but we must recognise that, if our approach is tactless and overbearing, we will diminish rather than increase our influence.

We need to maintain an element of sustainability in foreign policy and consistency in our approach. It has been pointed out in the debate that many other countries have capital punishment. Some 30 out of 50 Commonwealth countries maintain systems of capital punishment, as do 128 countries world wide. Many of those countries, such as Uganda, India and Pakistan, are big recipients of overseas aid from the United Kingdom. In pursuing our foreign policy objectives, we must consider carefully the attitudes that we adopt to capital punishment in those countries—especially since it is often hard to maintain that their systems of justice are perfect. It is a question not of ignoring the problem but of ensuring that we maintain—and are seen to maintain—a degree of consistency.

We have relatively limited leverage in this area because of the background factors and public opinion in Caribbean countries. The aid budget is important and perhaps more could be done through that budget to tackle the crime problem in the Caribbean. Perhaps we could provide the sort of legal support outlined by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough. There are solutions to these problems and things that can be done to address them. It is right to raise the issues, and we must be persuasive and forthright in so doing. Capital punishment is a disturbing issue and I find convincing, and sympathise with, the points made by right hon. and hon. Members this morning.

We operate, however, in a world where practical results matter. We have granted the Caribbean countries democratic rights and we must respect their decisions. The democratic weight of opinion in those countries is overwhelming, and we must respect the people's views. So our approach must be human rights based. We must do all that we can to influence prison conditions, the treatment of people and the handling of legal cases. There is every reason to adopt quiet persuasion and to consider what can be done through the aid budget and the United Nations. However, as an ex-colonial power, it behoves us to be extremely sensitive and persuasive in our handling of the issue. It may be that a light touch is needed.

10.48 am

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd)

I strongly welcome the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to apply for this debate. He raised an important issue, and the quality of contributions this morning—it sounds patronising, but it happens to be true—has been outstanding. Our message will ring across the oceans to each of the Caribbean states mentioned this morning.

I begin with the pleasant task of welcoming the first contribution by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) from the Front Bench. I am sure that his thoughtful and well-researched speech has been well received both here and outside this place. He has set himself a high standard to live up to.

The background to the debate is that, after capital punishment had been in disuse for some years, a number of states began to withdraw from some of the important international human rights conventions last year, giving a strong signal of intent to resume capital punishment. The circumstances of that have been detailed by hon. Members. That was followed by executions in the Bahamas and in St. Kitts-Nevis. Earlier this month, there were nine executions, about which the House has heard, in Trinidad and Tobago. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has said, the comments made by Prime Minister P. J. Patterson a little under two weeks ago suggest that Jamaica is about to take the same course.

We should place it on record that revulsion is felt by any civilised human being at the crime of murder—there is no disagreement about that. Murder is generally considered to be an horrific crime and, in its most extreme cases, revulsion for the crime and the criminal is a natural and understandable human reaction.

I shall not rehearse all the arguments concerning the death penalty. My own views, like those of every hon. Member who has spoken, have been consistent for many years, although I do not have a closed mind and we must constantly re-examine the arguments. It is worth reiterating that taking away a human life by judicial process is futile. All studies suggest that capital punishment has no long-term deterrent effect and, as has been said in the debate, we know where our own judicial processes have been flawed. Happily, capital punishment has not been used recently, although it would have been carried out in certain cases in a previous era. We know that innocent people have been executed and, for them, there can never be any attempt at recompense.

The House has consistently rejected the reintroduction of the death penalty over many years. In 1997, the Government recognised that and Parliament abolished the death penalty for treason and piracy and removed it from armed forces legislation. We have ratified, or will ratify, various protocols, such as protocol 6 of the European convention on human rights and the second optional protocol to the international covenant on civil and political rights. As hon. Members have said, foreign policy has to take account of the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Under the UK presidency of the European Union, we agreed EU guidelines to press for abolition of the death penalty.

The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells referred to consistency. We have raised specific cases in many countries, including the United States, China, Iran, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Philippines and others. We have also made our policy on the death penalty clear in the course of normal contact with many other countries. We are not singling out Caribbean states because they are small or even because of our close and friendly relations. This is an important issue of principle and humanity—principle is universal and non-discriminatory, as is the bond of humanity—so there is no difficulty in saying to the House that we do not need to keep silent on it.

We have a particularly close relationship with the countries of the Caribbean and, at the end of this week, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will travel to the European-Latin American and Caribbean summit in Rio de Janeiro. He will make a major contribution on the issue of drugs and the need for co-operation across Latin America and the Caribbean and the consumer countries of Europe. Britain already co-operates strongly on a bilateral basis in parts of that region, but we need to improve our response and recognise that, in the modern world, drugs are often the motor for crimes of excessive greed and, in particular, violent crime. I believe that such co-operation is addressing some of the fundamentals which, ironically, dictate what the House is discussing this morning—murder and capital punishment.

A particular concern for the United Kingdom is ensuring that the anxieties of our close friends in the Caribbean are given proper weight in the summit proceedings. It is right that the United Kingdom, of all countries, should shoulder that task. The historical ties that bind us are strong and the links run deep in cities such as Manchester, which I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton represent. Many of our constituents come from the West Indies and their children and their children's children are respected constituents. Their influence is powerful and for the good. We trade extensively with the Caribbean and have close contacts at every level. The Government have taken, and will continue to take, numerous initiatives, beginning with the UK-Caribbean regional forum in Nassau in February last year, to develop and enhance our relationship and reflect the depth and closeness of these links in a modern context.

Sadly, we find ourselves in fundamental disagreement with close friends over the specific issue of capital punishment, but the frequency and depth of our dialogue means that we can seriously engage Caribbean Governments. We understand the context that exists in many Caribbean countries and their particular problems, and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) gave us a graphic account of the strength of feeling that exists. We do not deny that and we do not intend to diminish the impact of violent crime in Caribbean countries.

Crime, and particularly violent crime such as murder, is increasing. A high proportion of murders are domestic—that is the case everywhere—but many are related to the increasing drugs menace. The islands find themselves on the drug trafficking routes from source to user countries, so they are vulnerable to the extraordinary violence that results from that horrific trade. The consequences are tragic.

We have sympathy for the Governments who valiantly attempt to enforce the law and make their communities safer, often with extremely limited resources. We need to be mindful of the fears of citizens, their demands for tough action by Governments and the pressure under which Caribbean Governments are put by the action of other states.

We want to establish that, although we sympathise with the difficulties of Caribbean Governments, we fundamentally disagree that capital punishment is the solution. However, we can do more than stand on the sidelines. We are finding ways of helping Caribbean Governments with the problems of crime and criminal justice. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells made that very point. The work of our police advisers and technical co-operation officers in the region involves training Caribbean police forces in modern techniques, and building the capacity of those institutions to improve crime prevention and fight the growing problems of youth crime and violence. That is a practical step towards introducing real deterrence.

We will build on our work on prison reform; I heard the comments of hon. Members on conditions in some of the Caribbean states, in particular Jamaica. When my noble Friend Baroness Symons visited Jamaica in October last year, she raised the issue of prison conditions with the Jamaican authorities. We are working hard in countries such as Belize to find alternatives to prison, because conditions are often horrendous. We will help with the introduction of greater use of non-custodial prisons. That may not help in respect of capital crimes, but it will alleviate the pressure on the prison system. We are assisting with criminal justice reform and helping to simplify court procedures and improve legislative drafting.

A number of suggestions have come from hon. Members. I shall happily discuss with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton the funding for the Caribbean death penalty crime project, which he discussed. It will help if we take that forward bilaterally at first and I am more than sympathetic to the concept, which is consistent with what the Foreign Office is doing through the human rights project fund.

I am also sure that we can find imaginative ways of helping to ensure that relevant, up-to-date information is available through modern technology such as the internet, and possibly through the British Council. We can certainly look at those issues. We are funding Caribbean Justice, which is holding a conference on the death penalty that will bring together lawyers and other interested parties. We also intend to help there.

Development assistance was referred to, but I must disappoint my hon. Friends on that. I shall tell them why. We have no bilateral programme with some countries—the question of consistency is important in that—but we are determined to help the most marginal countries out of poverty. Poverty creates the conditions for crime and we would turn our back on the reality of violent crime if we cut all forms of assistance. We are not prepared to cut programmes for those who help with judicial reform.

I have not been able to deal with some issues, and I shall write to hon. Members about them, but the message from this important debate will travel to the Caribbean. Strong feelings are held in this country as well as in the Caribbean and we have done the House and our friends in the Caribbean a service by raising this important issue.