---

Mr. Jessel : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Madden : The hon. Gentleman has spoken already and I am about to conclude.

It is quite wrong for the treaty to be approved at this time. It is saying to many people in Britain that we are equating all turbans with terrorism. That has been the victory of Indian propaganda. I have to say, particularly to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), whom I respect completely, that the mother and father of terrorism is state terrorism. State terrorism, suppression and repression breed militancy and terrorism. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Indian Government to ensure that human rights abuses are not perpetrated, particularly by Indian security forces. I hope that that message will be given firmly by the British Government. We have had enough of fine words and expressions of concern. Before we give approval to such treaties, we want positive and immediate action from the Government of India to combat the gross human rights violations which are taking place in many parts of India.

---

Column 465

11.31 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd) : We are debating emotivissues. I am aware, and have been for some time, of hon. Members' concerns about human rights in India. I have reflected them in my dealings as the Minister responsible for our relations with the Indian Republic and explained hon. Members' concerns to Indian Ministers and to the contacts I have. I have added that the Kashmir, Punjab and Sikh problems are legitimate subjects for debate in the United Kingdom because they affect the lives of United Kingdom citizens.

I know that it is wrong to refer by name to individuals in the Gallery, but one may do so collectively and we are all aware that this debate is being watched and listened to and will be read about by a large number of British citizens.

However, we must consider the offences that we are talking about. Members of the Jammu and Kashmir liberation front abducted and later assassinated the assistant Indian high commissioner in Birmingham in February 1984. Six extremists were later convicted and gaoled in the United Kingdom for his murder. The Sikh militant, Paramjit Singh Sidhu, was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and sentenced to 11 years after conviction on an explosives charge in 1990. Other Sikh militants were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment on conspiracy charges in July 1991. There have been several assassination attempts in Britain against prominent Sikh moderates. That is the British situation, but let us consider some of the international problems.

In 1985, Canadian-based Sikh militants caused a mid-air explosion on an Air India flight from Toronto to London ; 329 people were killed. There was a related bomb at Tokyo airport which killed two airport staff. Those are some of the problems that we will be facing. Canada has concluded a similar extradition agreement with the Republic of India.

Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central) : Have any perpretrators of those acts been brought to justice without this extradition treaty?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : The purpose of this extradition agreement is for the House and the Government to say that, in such cases, it would be an outrage in this day and age for people to say that they acted with political intentions and therefore should avoid extradition and trial for alleged offences of that magnitude. The sort of offences about which we are talking--my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) referred to this--must be clarified. We are not talking about trivial offences--far from it. We are talking about offences involving hijacking, taking hostages, serious crimes of violence, murder, manslaughter, serious assaults, kidnapping, explosives, firearms offences and financing of terrorism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has strong views on this subject. We have often discussed those views privately--we often discuss things privately. Can he say that it is right that the argument that such offences were politically induced should be available in this day and age, when air travel is so easy and so available, which is what we are talking about?

---

Column 466

Mr. Watts : Is my hon. Friend arguing that, in such cases, the defence of political purpose has been used successfully in a British court to resist an attempt by the Indian Government to obtain extradition ? In his earlier remarks, has he not recited a number of instances of crimes committed in the United Kingdom where people have been properly convicted and punished by the courts ? What is his argument for the need for this repulsive treaty ?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : Those crimes were committed in the United Kingdom. The treaty is mutual. There will be mutual recognition of rights of extradition--it works both ways.

It is right that the House should be so concerned about the protection of individuals. First, the matter must be considered by a British Home Office Minister. He must make a decision as to whether it is appropriate for the case to go to the Bow Street magistrates court. The decision of that court is appealable. The matter must then be considered by the Home Secretary, whose decision is open to judicial review. Indeed, the first decision of the Minister is open to judicial review if any applicant wishes to appeal. The Home Secretary must be satisfied that all the matters have been appropriately considered.

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) : How can people of Kashmir origin in the United Kingdom have any confidence in assurances of scrutiny from a Government who deported a Kashmir leader, Mr. Amanullah Khan, after he was twice acquitted of all charges by British courts ?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the conduct of Ministers, he should remember that the Bow Street magistrates court must consider the matter. Any decision is appealable on a writ of habeas corpus. The Minister's first and second decisions are subject to the process of judicial review. Ministerial decisions can be considered up to four times by a British court.

Hon. Members have expressed their concerns dramatically and extensively. It is fortuitous that this debate should be this week, because next Monday, the Indian Parliament is commencing its committee on legislation to set up an independent Indian human rights commission. It is good timing to have the debate today. I have no doubt that the views expressed by hon. Members will be noted by the Indian high commission in London, and that copies of the Official Report will be made available to parliamentarians in India. I defy hon. Members to assert that there are not parliamentarians in India who take human rights interests strongly to heart and express concern about them.

I wish to reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about access to India for human rights organisations and the signs in recent days of the Indian Government modifying and changing their policy in that regard. It has been one of my tasks to urge the Government of India to allow access to international human rights organisations and other groups. Therefore, I am particularly pleased by their recent statement on the issue.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) : Will the Minister give way ?

---

Column 467

Mr. Lennox-Boyd : If I may, I shall make clear what the Indian Government said and my views on it ; then, if there is time, I will give way.

It may be helpful if I read out the precise passage. In a statement, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs said :

"In furtherance of the earlier initiatives, Government has now decided to allow certain human rights organisations to visit India to see for themselves how human rights safeguards operate in various parts of the country."

Hon Members will dispute some of the phraseology in that statement, but it clearly says "India" and does not exclude any part of India. It simply states that India will be open to human rights organisations. I hope, and I shall certainly press, that it will not be too long before Amnesty International and other human rights organisations may be able to visit Kashmir and all parts of India to carry out investigations that they may legitimately seek to follow. It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

The House divided : Ayes 123, Noes 38.

Division No. 357] [11.42 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Amess, David

Ancram, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Bates, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Boswell, Tim

Bowis, John

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Peter

Cash, William

Clappison, James

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coe, Sebastian

Colvin, Michael

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cran, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duncan, Alan

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Dykes, Hugh

Eggar, Tim

Elletson, Harold

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Fabricant, Michael

Fishburn, Dudley

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Gallie, Phil

Gillan, Cheryl

Gorst, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Hague, William

Harris, David

Haselhurst, Alan

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Hendry, Charles

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Jack, Michael

---

Column 468

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Jenkin, Bernard

Jessel, Toby

Kilfedder, Sir James

Knapman, Roger

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Legg, Barry

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Lidington, David

Lightbown, David

Luff, Peter

MacKay, Andrew

Maclean, David

Maitland, Lady Olga

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Merchant, Piers

Milligan, Stephen

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Nelson, Anthony

Neubert, Sir Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Patnick, Irvine

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Pickles, Eric

Porter, David (Waveney)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Richards, Rod

Riddick, Graham

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Sims, Roger

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Speed, Sir Keith

Spink, Dr Robert

Sproat, Iain

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Stephen, Michael

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Trend, Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wells, Bowen

Whittingdale, John

Willetts, David

Wood, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes :

Sydney Chapman and

Timothy Kirkhope.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Barnes, Harry

Cann, Jamie

Cohen, Harry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Cox, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Dicks, Terry

George, Bruce

Gerrard, Neil

Godsiff, Roger

Graham, Thomas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Hardy, Peter

Heppell, John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Leighton, Ron

Lewis, Terry

Loyden, Eddie

Mahon, Alice

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Pike, Peter L.

Powell, William (Corby)

Purchase, Ken

Rendel, David

Rooney, Terry

Skinner, Dennis

Spearing, Nigel

Spellar, John

Turner, Dennis

Waller, Gary

Walley, Joan

Watts, John

Wise, Audrey

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Max Madden and

Ms Liz Lynne.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

---