Death Penalty in India
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-02598, in the name of John Mason, on the death penalty in India. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the recent rally that was held in Edinburgh by members of the Sikh community from Shettleston and across Scotland to express their opposition to the reintroduction of the death penalty in India; understands that, as a result of the Indian Government’s decision, a death sentence has been imposed on Balwant Singh Rajoana, who has been in prison since 2007, when he was sentenced to 17 years; understands, however, that, following a mercy petition to the President of India, the death sentence on Balwant Singh Rajoana has been postponed; notes the calls for the Indian Government not to proceed with the death penalty for Balwant Singh Rajoana or any other prisoners, and believes that capital punishment is fundamentally wrong and has no place in the twenty-first century.
17:05
I thank the Presiding Officer for the opportunity to have this debate. The subject is the death penalty in India and, specifically, the sentence on Balwant Singh Rajoana. At the outset, I make a clear distinction. Violence and other criminal activity is not acceptable and I in no way condone it. However, there is a separate question as to what sentences are acceptable in a civilised country. I will argue this evening that the death penalty is not acceptable whatever the crime.
I clarify that I am not in any way singling out India concerning the subject. I and others would be equally critical of the United States or China. India is a sovereign country and has the right to make her own decisions. I have visited India only briefly, but what I saw hugely impressed me. I lived in neighbouring Nepal for some years, and I think that we in the west have much to learn from south Asia, not least about how family members look after one another and the fact that having older relatives is seen as a privilege and not as a burden.
We do not in any way try to speak down to India, which can sometimes be a criticism of countries such as ours with a sad imperial past. India has a much longer and more impressive history than ours. Instead, we want to appeal to India, almost as a younger brother, to consider this particular outcome of its legal system.
We focus not just on a particular country, but on a particular individual who has been sentenced to death. Balwant Singh Rajoana is a Sikh—that is, a member of a minority community in India. In 1995, he is said to have witnessed the mass murder of many Sikhs ordered by the Chief Minister of Punjab, Beant Singh. In 2007, Balwant Singh was convicted for the assassination in 1995 of that same Chief Minister Beant Singh.
I am not here to condone revenge, although that is a reaction that many of us might have under such circumstances, but I am here to question the use of the death penalty, which only continues the cycle of violence and revenge rather than seeking to break it. Sikhs themselves oppose the use of the death penalty, and I understand that the family of Beant Singh would not oppose a pardon.
At this stage, I thank members from various parties for supporting my motion, which helped to secure this evening’s debate. I also thank Scotland’s Sikh community, some of whom are present in the public gallery, for highlighting the issue, especially by demonstrating outside the Parliament in March.
Scotland and Britain have carried out many barbaric acts over the years and the death penalty was finally abolished here only in 1998, although it ceased to be available for murder in 1965. We are not innocents, but that is not an excuse for us to say nothing on the issue. Other countries can rightly criticise Scotland when we get things wrong, and we have the right to comment on other countries’ practices. We all gain from being in the family of nations and from mutual constructive criticism.
One of my hopes for Scotland, whether within the United Kingdom or not, is that we have a strong record in standing up for human rights. I hope that we can agree on that point tonight.
I pay tribute to Amnesty International for its briefing for this evening’s debate, and, more important, for its tireless campaigning against the death penalty and all other human rights abuses. In its briefing, Amnesty points out that, across the world, most countries are moving away from the death penalty. When Amnesty started campaigning against it in 1977, only 16 countries had abolished it, but today 141 countries are abolitionist in law or in practice.
China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and the United States carried out the most executions in 2011. Excluding China, which is believed to have carried out more than the rest of the world put together, there were 676 known executions worldwide, up from 527 in 2010.
There are many reasons for not having the death penalty. I expect that members will mention a variety of those, but I will highlight a few. All judicial systems make mistakes at times, but the death penalty is irrevocable. Members of minority communities tend to be the victims of the death penalty more than others. Poorer people and those with mental health problems are also often sufferers—we know that such groups often populate our prisons in this country. Furthermore, the death penalty has not proved to be a deterrent to violence in this or other countries. I believe that as members of a civilised society we should rise above what has been done to us and should even treat criminals with mercy, while not undermining justice.
To focus again on India, for seven successive years no executions have taken place. However, in 2011, 110 people were sentenced to death and mercy petitions to the president have been rejected. There is a fear that the death penalty could be reintroduced.
Apart from anything else, a prolonged stay on death row has to be considered a form of torture. The world’s longest-serving death-row inmate is believed to be Japanese. He has been there for 44 years and suffers from a mental illness as a result. How can that be right?
On 2 April I wrote to the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, to ask about the United Kingdom Government’s position on the death penalty, both in India and across the rest of the world. I received a response from Jeremy Browne MP, who is a minister of state in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dated 3 May. I thought that it was a reasonable response. He detailed the work that the UK Government has done on the matter, specifically raising the case of Balwant Singh Rajoana and the wider issue of the death penalty in India. The UK Government has raised the matter both bilaterally with India and through the European Union. Among the other things that he says in his letter, he states:
“It is the longstanding policy of successive British Governments to strongly oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. We regularly make our position clear to the Indian Government”.
I welcome that.
Turning to home, I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs whether any representations have been or can be made by the Scottish Government in respect of this case or more generally about India’s plans to perhaps reintroduce capital punishment. Perhaps she can clarify the Scottish Government’s policy on engaging with India.
I invite the cabinet secretary to put on the public record the Scottish Government’s opposition to the death penalty. Will she also make representations to the Foreign Office on behalf of this Parliament?
Wrongly imprisoning someone is one thing, as they can potentially be released and compensated, but ending their life is final: there is no going back. I conclude by quoting Desmond Tutu. He said:
“To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice.”
17:13
I thank John Mason for securing the debate. I welcome and say Sat Sri Akal to our delegation of activists from the Sikh community, who are—colourfully—in the public gallery.
Along with John Mason, John Finnie, Sandra White and Bill Kidd, I had the pleasure of addressing more than 200 members of the Sikh community who recently came to the Parliament to protest against India’s use of the death penalty. We promised to highlight the issue in the Parliament, and I thank John Mason for helping us to keep our word.
The fundamental issue is what kind of society and, ultimately, what kind of world we want to live in. I do not blame the victims or the families of victims of heinous crimes who wish to see the perpetrator face the harshest of punishment and, often, direct retribution for ending a life. I thank God that I have never found myself in such a situation, but I imagine that I, too, would struggle to feel anything other than the thirst for revenge if anything was ever done to a loved one of mine. However, our humanity is most often put to the test in difficult circumstances. At times it is easier to react with anger and emotion than it is to take a step back and think rationally about the wider implications of our actions.
India is the world’s largest democracy and its third largest economy; it is an emerging world superpower. It is therefore troubling that it is resorting to the use of the death penalty. I echo John Mason’s point that we in the west have no particular moral high ground. Many perceive double standards from countries such as the UK when we continually lecture eastern countries on human rights and the use of the death penalty in particular, but our leaders remain silent on that when they travel to the United States, where 33 states still have the death penalty and which is the only country in the G8 to have it.
I will make a couple of points about why the death penalty should be abolished in India. Wherever capital punishment is practised in the world, it is used disproportionately against the poorest in society and against minorities. In Pakistan, Christians are mostly on the receiving end; in Saudi Arabia, the market trader is infinitely more likely to face the death penalty than is one of the hundreds of Saudi princes for committing the same crime. The disproportionality in the use of the death penalty is stark.
The death penalty cannot be undone. By most accounts, the UK’s legal system is robust, but we often have miscarriages of justice—just think of the Guildford four or the Birmingham six. At worst, we restrict somebody’s liberty wrongly, which is of course still unacceptable. If a court overturns a decision, we can restore an individual’s freedom. However, we cannot bring people back from the dead. That is why the death penalty is such a dangerous punishment mechanism.
In March, Amnesty International published its annual report on the death penalty, which showed that only 21 of the 198 countries in the world carry out executions. That figure has dropped by more than a third in the past decade. If India—an emerging world superpower—abandoned its use of this cruel and inhumane punishment, that would send out an incredibly powerful message. India could then use economic leverage to softly persuade countries that rely on it for support to reconsider their positions on capital punishment.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with those who pursue human rights as vigorously and passionately as our Sikh community and our gurdwaras do in Glasgow. Perhaps Mahatma Gandhi put it best when he said that an eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind. I sincerely hope that the Indian Government sees with clear vision and makes the brave decision to abandon the death penalty.
17:17
I, too, thank John Mason for bringing the debate to the chamber. He spoke eloquently about the plight of people around the world and not just in India.
Balwant Singh Rajoana’s case is not a single issue; a big issue is involved. India is surrounded by hostile countries—Pakistan, China, Burma and others—and there are huge pressures on its security and wellbeing. Since gaining its freedom and independence, India has struggled to secure its borders. I understand the challenges that the Indian authorities face but, unfortunately, I cannot agree with them on the death penalty.
As far as I am concerned, taking a life is not an option. There are huge issues in communities. As a child, I saw a film with a story about a father and husband who was found guilty of a crime. He was given a death sentence and, after he passed away, the truth that he was innocent came out. That has stayed in my mind since childhood, when I realised for the first time that, if such a sentence is given wrongly, it cannot be fixed. Once a life has been taken, it cannot be brought back, as Humza Yousaf was right to say.
Such issues are very important. Democracies around the world have a huge challenge. They have the challenge of ensuring their citizens’ wellbeing and securing their borders, but they must also show compassion and show that they are above what others do. That is important.
I see much indifference in countries around the world and I see the hypocrisy of some laws that are out there. I cannot justify people resorting to taking lives. That is why I wrote to the President of India. India is the largest democracy in the world, and a big brother—I do not call it a small brother, but a big brother. It is full of history and tradition, and it is rich and diverse.
I have had the privilege and the pleasure of travelling in India, and I am nothing but impressed by what I see there. I had the opportunity to visit the Golden temple before and after its storming, and to visit other parts of India. I have always come back enriched by and impressed with what India has to offer its people. I request the Indian Government to consider removing the death penalty from its statutes, as that is important and fundamental.
The Sikh community in Scotland, in the UK and around the world is fighting for not only one individual, but a just cause, which is that we should not be taking life. I wish the community Sat Sri Akal for joining us in the public gallery today. It is always a pleasure to work with the community, which has done a lot for Scotland and for the United Kingdom, and it is right that the community looks to the Parliament to support it in its hour of need.
I reiterate that I would welcome the Indian Government’s decision to withdraw the death penalty for all its citizens, and I wish the community luck with that.
17:21
I thank John Mason for bringing this incredibly important debate to the chamber tonight. I also thank Glasgow gurdwara and Amnesty International for the briefings that they sent us.
I was pleased, as many members were, to meet the delegation from the Glasgow Sikh community that came here in March. The motion reminds me how important the stance of the community is, and how important it is to me personally.
The last line of the motion states:
“capital punishment is fundamentally wrong and has no place in the twenty-first century.”
I think that all of us in the chamber would echo that sentiment.
I understand from my reading that Sikh teaching does not encourage retribution or retaliation, which is a philosophy that I would recommend to one and all. That philosophy is very apparent in the case of Balwant Singh Rajoana, and we should view it in exactly that way. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception—a category that includes the Rajoana case—and that is a sentiment that I utterly endorse and echo.
Why do so many of us oppose the death penalty? Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that we have “the right to life”—it is as fundamental as that.
As many members will know, I like to quote the evidence when I am making a speech, and the evidence is that capital punishment does not deter crime. That was clearly shown in surveys that were carried out in the US in 1998 and 1996. A more recent survey, from 2010, stated:
“the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9”.
Could the evidence be clearer than that?
Many members have referred to the fact that the death penalty cannot be reversed. If there is a miscarriage of justice, there is no opportunity to roll that back.
The death penalty is a harsh punishment, but it is not harsh on crime. It brutalises society, and it legitimises state violence. I hope that this debate in the Scottish Parliament will convince the Indian Government to join the 96 states around the world that have abolished capital punishment.
17:24
I apologise to Fiona McLeod—I had a lectern malfunction, and I am sorry if the noise interrupted her speech.
I congratulate John Mason on bringing this debate to the Parliament, and I thank the many constituents who took the time to contact me on this important issue.
I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, so I am only too aware that our country abolished the death penalty relatively recently. The last hanging in Scotland took place in Aberdeen in 1963, and the last hanging in the UK was in 1964. By then, public opinion had begun to demonstrate concern about the use of the death penalty, not least because of cases such as that of Derek Bentley, the teenager who was convicted in very unsatisfactory circumstances of killing a policeman.
The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 suspended the use of the death penalty for five years. However, before the end of the moratorium, in 1969, Parliament—in a move that was controversial to some and much welcomed by others—abolished hanging as a punishment for murder. It is worth noting, as members said, that the death penalty was retained for crimes such as treason and piracy with violence until the signing of the sixth protocol of the European convention on human rights in 1999.
My opposition to the death penalty is one of principle. I do not believe that we have the right to take away someone’s life. However, I am also acutely aware that, on a practical basis, the death penalty just does not work. It is not a deterrent, as Fiona McLeod demonstrated, and it sullies us all. We know of many cases in which it seems clear that people were killed for crimes that they did not commit. Equally worrying is that, if the death penalty had continued to be an instrument of the justice system after 1969, others who were wrongly convicted, such as the Birmingham six, might well have received the death sentence.
As John Mason correctly said, this debate is not an attack on India. India is a sovereign state and must make its own decisions, and it is welcome that in the past seven years no executions have taken place in India, as Amnesty International said, although 110 people were sentenced to death in 2011. It is notable, however, that the mercy petitions that were submitted in respect of five people have been rejected. Activists fear that those men, having exhausted the legal process that is available to them, are extremely vulnerable.
John Mason was right to highlight the physical and mental health issues that often arise for prisoners who are kept incarcerated with the threat of death hanging over them, sometimes for many years.
The motion highlights the case of Balwant Singh Rajoana, who was convicted of the assassination of the former Punjab chief minister, Beant Singh, and was due to be executed in March. Pressure from Sikhs around the world and from pressure groups such as Amnesty International has resulted in a reprieve for Balwant Singh, which is of course very welcome.
The message from tonight’s debate is that the death penalty is not acceptable, wherever it is practised. I am grateful to John Mason for securing the debate. It seems to me that the death penalty, instead of being a deterrent, as its supporters claim that it is, is a signal from a Government that it considers life to be expendable. I am sure that no nation really wants to set such an example.
17:28
I congratulate John Mason and thank him for lodging this significant motion. This is Scotland’s Sikh community’s Parliament and we must articulate and address the community’s concerns.
I attended the rally outside the Parliament, which was colourful and vibrant. Animated speakers outlined fundamental principles regarding human rights and humanity, and I listened intently. Like other members, I have no doubt that pressure from the worldwide Sikh community has brought about the postponement of the death sentence for Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana.
I am grateful to Amnesty International for its briefing—I should declare my membership of the organisation. I join Amnesty in congratulating the Sikh community in Scotland on its campaign work on India and the death penalty. I am also grateful to Glasgow gurdwara for its briefing.
It is evident that, in 1995, Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana witnessed vile acts, which would shock any decent human. I was shocked by references to the systematic pattern of abuse against the Sikh community. Extrajudicial murders—the acts of the very people who are charged with protecting the community—undermine any society.
As we have heard, Amnesty opposes the death penalty for two fundamental reasons, articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—“the right to life” and the right not to be tortured or subjected to any “cruel, inhuman or degrading” punishment. Amnesty states:
“The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.”
As John Mason also mentioned, the effect on the mental wellbeing of someone who has been sentenced to death is significant—the experience of that Japanese gentleman is surely beyond our comprehension.
The briefings that we were given have some graphic detail and some alarming information about the execution process. I was taken by the following definition from Amnesty:
“An execution, like physical forms of torture, involves a deliberate assault on a prisoner. The only difference is that the assault is continued until a person is killed.”
That is a telling explanation. In India, a number of executions have been suspended by courts to allow for the consideration of separate legal challenges on the delay in deciding mercy petitions, and the constitutionality of a prolonged stay on death row—that is important.
It is also important to understand the issue of revenge that Humza Yousaf mentioned. What is the purpose of punishment? Is it retribution? Is it to bring about reform? Certainly, as a child I was told that two wrongs do not make a right, which stands me in good stead in my views on other matters, too.
The state of Georgia was referred to. We can talk in abstract terms about the death penalty, but linking it to an individual provides a graphic example. Many of us will recall the death last year of Troy Davis who, by any stretch of the imagination, was far from compellingly convicted—there were serious doubts about his guilt. That was one of the 676 executions that took place worldwide in 2011.
According to the Amnesty International 2012 annual report on human rights, which was released last Friday, India’s growing influence in the world was marked by its election to the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council.
I did some research—I hope that I got this right and certainly do not wish to offend if I got it wrong—and I understand that the Sikh turban symbolises discipline, integrity, humility and spirituality. I hope that India will think again, display discipline, integrity, humility and spirituality, and dispense with the barbarity of the death sentence.
17:32
I am grateful to speak in this debate, which has proved to be interesting and informative. I congratulate John Mason on securing the debate. In terms of the motions that Mr Mason brings before Parliament, he is probably one of the most interesting members we have in this parliamentary session. I congratulate him on raising a subject that is worthy of debate in this chamber.
The death penalty is never justified although—as others have said—it has existed in different parts of the world at different times. John Mason correctly outlined that point at the start of the debate. Patricia Ferguson spoke in a bit more detail about the history of the death penalty in Britain, which sobers us before we seek to lecture other parts of the world about how their judicial systems work.
In my view, judicial killing never represents a justified sentence in a fair legal process, for reasons that others have outlined: first, because it is an ineffective deterrent, and secondly because it is an action that cannot be overturned. Those two fundamental reasons go to the heart of why we should campaign against the death penalty wherever it remains. I add my voice to those who have congratulated Amnesty International and the campaigning that it has been involved in around the world, particularly on this issue, for about 30 years.
I do not think it is for countries such as ours—particularly with our history—to tell others what to do, but on this issue there is a role for Governments to put pressure on our friends around the world and to encourage them at every opportunity to respect human rights.
In taking part in this debate, I simply want to add my voice to the congratulations that have been extended to the Sikh community in Scotland on its campaigning on the issue. I am sorry that I was not able to be present when they staged their protest at Holyrood, but I know that other members—particularly Glasgow members—who spoke at that event were mindful of the importance that the Sikh community, especially the community in Glasgow, places on this case. When I visited the Nithsdale Road gurdwara on the south side last week, the issue’s importance to the community was evident.
It is offensive that executions take place but, in my view, it is as offensive that the concept of death row should exist and that a death sentence can be passed even if an execution is not carried out.
I am sure that the minister will tell us that the Scottish Government raises the issue of human rights whenever it interacts with Governments around the world, and I hope that it continues to do so.
17:36
I congratulate John Mason on securing the debate. To my mind and, I believe, to everyone’s mind the issue that we are debating is important, not only for those throughout the world who are interested in human rights, but for the many thousands of Sikhs who are fervently opposed to the death penalty—as was eloquently outlined by Fiona McLeod—and who face persecution and death in their thousands in India. That is reflected in the motion.
I agree with members who said that the death penalty is abhorrent in any country, but I will focus my remarks on the motion, which deals with the death penalty in India.
I record my thanks to the gurdwaras in Scotland, particularly in Glasgow, and to Charandeep Singh, for the absolutely fantastic work that they have done and the dedication that they have shown in bringing this injustice to the attention not only of MSPs and MPs but to many other groups. Without their lobbying and campaigning, many people would be unaware of what is happening in India today.
Humza Yousaf mentioned the meeting outside the Parliament in March, which I and others attended. It just so happened that Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, who is on the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, was visiting Parliament that day. I had a meeting with him and took a message to Charandeep Singh outside Parliament. I was able to hand Sir Alan a petition that had been handed to John Mason and me. I record my thanks to Sir Alan, who took the petition to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which led to further lobbying of the Indian Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent a thought-provoking letter to John Mason and me to say that it is vehemently against the death penalty and would have a meeting with the Indian high commissioner.
When we think of the variety of people who have been lobbying in Scotland and around the world on behalf of the Sikhs, and who have been making representations about what is happening in India, we must give thanks to the Sikh community for raising the matter with us.
As has been said with regard to the situation in India, the Sikhs are vehemently against the death penalty—in fact, I think that when the Sikhs were in Government many hundreds of years ago in the Indian provinces, they did not persecute and hang people or pursue any other particularly abhorrent way of treating people. We owe our thanks to the Sikhs for letting us know exactly what they feel, through their religion and beliefs.
There have, as is absolutely right, been many good speeches tonight highlighting the fact that there is no way back from capital punishment. We have to say to the Indian Government that it is a member of the UN Security Council, as John Finnie said, and the UN Human Rights Council, and that it should act in accordance with international law.
We in the Parliament, and people outwith it, appeal to the President of India to outlaw the abhorrent practice of capital punishment. As John Finnie said, the Scottish Parliament is a people’s Parliament and Sikhs are part of the Scottish community, so we should support Sikhs in their request for us to lobby the Indian Government to outlaw the absolutely horrific practice of capital punishment. I hope that the cabinet secretary, in any dealings that she has with the Indian Government and the high commissioner, will raise the issues that have been raised in the debate.
We have had many debates in the Parliament on international issues in which the cabinet secretary has said that it would perhaps be good to send a copy of the Official Report to the country or Government involved. I suggest to the cabinet secretary that it would be a good idea to send the Official Report of this debate to the high commissioner or to the Indian Government.
17:40
I thank John Mason for the motion on the death penalty and for highlighting the case of Balwant Singh Rajoana. I pay tribute to the manner in which John Mason introduced the debate, which has been thoughtful and respectful. Hanzala Malik reminded us of the need to be compassionate and Fiona McLeod told us that the death penalty brutalises society.
I reiterate the Scottish Government’s commitment to working in partnership with ethnic minority communities throughout Scotland to tackle racism and religious intolerance and to achieve the one Scotland to which we all aspire. The Sikh community in Scotland has made a valuable contribution to Scotland since the first Sikhs arrived here in the 1950s. Like Sandra White, I welcome the fact that the Sikh community has raised the issue by holding a rally in Edinburgh and bringing it to the attention of many people in Scotland.
The right to life is a fundamental human right. I certainly cannot regard the decision of a state to extinguish the life of an individual, after conviction for a serious crime, as a punishment that fits the crime, whatever the crime. The Scottish Government strongly opposes the death penalty in all circumstances and urges all states worldwide that practise capital punishment to establish a moratorium on executions, with a view to the abolition of the practice, which has no place in modern times.
As John Finnie and Drew Smith said, Amnesty International has been at the forefront of campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide and has described it as the
“ultimate violation of human rights”.
On 24 May, Amnesty published its 2012 report, which noted that, in 21 of the world’s 198 countries, executions, some public, are carried out and that nearly 20,000 people were under sentence of death at the end of 2011.
Substantial progress has been made in eradicating the death penalty worldwide, but there is still much to do. I welcome and commend the work of Amnesty and others in seeking to eradicate capital punishment worldwide. I am pleased that, despite the recent developments in India, the direction of travel internationally is very much away from capital punishment, and I hope that that will continue.
I should take the opportunity to recognise the strong stance that the UK Government has taken on the issue. It has developed a specific strategy of continuing to push towards abolition internationally and has in recent years played an active part in helping to secure successful outcomes in relation to the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The UK Government will work with others to secure record support for the resolution in autumn 2012.
An independent Scotland would be the 48th signatory to the European convention on human rights, protocol 13 to which states:
“The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.”
As a result, the European continent has almost completely moved away from capital punishment, except for Belarus, which I hope will one day join the fold. Scotland will continue to lead the way as a beacon of progressive opinion on these matters, as we actively demonstrate to the wider world the importance of, and the benefits inherent in, protecting and realising the human rights of all in society.
The Scottish Government is committed to creating a modern and inclusive Scotland that respects and realises human rights. Within the current constitutional settlement, Scotland frequently takes a distinctive progressive approach to issues—one that is geared towards reducing inequalities in our society and realising the rights, whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural, of all the people of Scotland.
Internationally, the First Minister and Mr Stevenson have been at the forefront of championing climate justice. Scotland benefits from having its own statutorily independent and internationally respected national human rights institution, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which currently chairs the European group of national human rights institutions.
Of course, we can do much more by acting as a progressive beacon internationally and showing that having a commitment to human rights is not just the right thing to do, but something that delivers real benefit to society.
As I have said, it is not only the Scottish Government that opposes the death penalty. My officials are in regular contact with the UK Government on a range of issues that are pertinent to international affairs. I understand that the relevant UK minister at the FCO, Jeremy Browne, wrote to the Indian high commissioner in London last November to set out the UK Government’s strong opposition to the death penalty and to urge the Indian Government to commute such sentences to life imprisonment. Mr Browne also raised the issue with the Indian Foreign Minister when they met on 28 June 2011 and with the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs at a meeting on 5 July 2011.
The Scottish Government has received correspondence from a number of members of the Sikh community on the issue, in response to which the points that I have just made have been reiterated.
I have noted the concerns of the Sikh community and others about the death sentence that was imposed on Mr Balwant Singh Rajoana, but I should explain that, as the case was heard in an Indian court, which is outwith Scottish jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to comment on the details of the case, apart from the death sentence that was imposed. As Patricia Ferguson and others said, we should recognise India’s status as an independent sovereign state.
John Mason asked about engagement. As members will be aware, the Scottish Government has a plan for engagement with India, and ministers have visited India on a number of occasions. In addition, we have welcomed a number of Indian ministers and delegations, and we want to build on what is a warm, important and highly valued relationship.
However, we are mindful of our responsibility to raise human rights issues with countries at the appropriate opportunity. As John Mason, Humza Yousaf and others have said, we must acknowledge the UK’s role and recent history in doing so, but I assure members that although foreign affairs is currently reserved to the UK Government, human rights know no boundaries and Scottish Government ministers are committed to promoting respect for human rights internationally.
This has been a valuable and important debate that has a wide international reach. It is important that the Scottish Parliament puts on record our views on this extremely important issue and that we do as Sandra White requested.
Meeting closed at 17:47.