division_name: Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [Lords] &#8212; Designation of international agreements for purposes of section 52 of Investigatory Powers Act 2016
motion: <p class="indent" pid="a851.0/11" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;simply blocks data sharing co-operation with all countries if the death penalty is a risk&#8221;,</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a851.0/13" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;reason Ministers seem to be so keen to tear up our laws and ignore our human rights is because they are in a terrible mess in refusing to rule out a No Deal Brexit.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a853.0/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;At worst, they will wind the president up to complain to the P.M.&#8221;&#8212;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a853.0/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;and, potentially, to hold a grudge.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a867.5/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;parts of the US machinery&#8212;notably career DOJ officials&#8212;would not be surprised if we asked for death penalty assurances. It is what they expect of us.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a867.5/7" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;But that doesn&#8217;t go for the senior political levels of this administration...At best they will think we have tin ears. At worst, they will wind the President up to complain to the PM and, potentially, to hold a grudge.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a867.5/9" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Her Majesty&#8217;s Government seeks a comprehensive assurance that the suspects will not be subject to the death penalty. This is critical to the consistency with which we apply HMG&#8217;s policy on Overseas Security and Justice Assistance&#8230;Were we not to apply this practice to this case, it could undermine all future efforts to secure effective written death penalty assurances from the US authorities for future UK security and justice assistance. The exception made for the US in this case could also undermine future attempts to secure similar assurances from other countries with which we have a security relationship... particularly if it seems likely that there is litigation which leads to the disclosure of the level of assurance. It could leave HMG open to accusations of western hypocrisy and double standards which would undermine HMG&#8217;s Death Penalty Policy globally, including in the US.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a869.0/3" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Our long-standing position on the death penalty is well known: we call for its abolition globally.&#8221;&#8212;[Official Report, <phrase class="date" code="2019-10-31">31 October</phrase> 2018; Vol. 648, c. 911.]</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a869.2/9" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;Defending a free media must therefore be a central element of British foreign policy, in keeping with our country&#8217;s role as an invisible chain linking the nations that share our values.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a871.0/5" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;There has been no change in the British Government&#8217;s policy of working towards global abolition of the death penalty.</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a871.0/6" pwmotiontext="yes">This Government pursues human rights in their universality&#8212;a more ambitious and coherent approach than focusing on a small number of single issues. Our commitment to the Rules Based International Order underpins this work, including through bilateral and multilateral support to global efforts to abolish the death penalty.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a873.3/4" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;where the treaty provides for requests&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="indent" pid="a878.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes">&#8220;the Government recognises and responds to the realities of political life in the state concerned, whether or not it likes those realities. It would be very odd indeed to ignore them. Ministers, diplomats and other officials are engaged in a constant process of evaluation, making judgements about the differences between what is said and what is meant; between what is threatened, explicitly or implicitly, and what is likely to happen; about the impact of action of the UK. That is what was done here. The Home Secretary had the advice of the British Ambassador&#8230;The suggestion that he was not entitled to take it into account and rely on that expert assessment when making his own judgement is misconceived.&#8221;</p>
  
  <p class="italic" pid="a878.3/5" pwmotiontext="yes">The House divided:</p>
  
  <p pid="a878.3/6" pwmotiontext="yes">Ayes 310, Noes 257.</p>