| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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
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.
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 othercountries 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.
"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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |