British Nationals Detained Overseas

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I do not underestimate the complexities and how difficult it is tactically for the Government to approach these sorts of cases, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where the families want their loved ones to be remembered and highlighted, that is exactly what should happen.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that, with the Prime Minister leaving to go to the Republic of India, it would be a good time for the Minister, in summing up the debate, to confirm that Jagtar Singh Johal is now arbitrarily detained by Indian authorities?

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sure the Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and will want to respond to that remark. It is important that, when the Prime Minister visits other countries and meets their leaders, he highlights these sorts of cases as a priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing this afternoon’s debate and for his tenacious support for his constituent Luke Symons. I will return to Luke’s case in a bit more detail shortly. I am also grateful to other hon. Members for raising a number of different cases today.

I want to start by paying tribute to our consular staff and our diplomats around the world, who work tirelessly to meet the needs of vulnerable British people. Around 5,000 British nationals are arrested or detained overseas each year, and supporting them is a large part of the role of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Our consular staff are contactable 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and they offer empathetic and professional support, which—importantly—is tailored to each individual case. Our staff make no judgment about the innocence or guilt of those detained overseas. As this debate and the cases that have been raised have highlighted, there are often incredibly complex challenges to overcome.

When British nationals are detained overseas, their health, welfare and human rights are our top priorities. We provide information on the local prison system so that they understand how it works. Where relevant, we inform British nationals how to access medical treatment. We provide information on English-speaking lawyers and whether a lawyer is provided by the state, so that they can access legal advice.

We cannot interfere in the internal affairs of another country, including court proceedings. Our ability to provide consular assistance is also dependent on other states adhering to their own and international laws. We can and do intervene where British nationals are not treated in line with internationally accepted standards and where there are unreasonable delays in procedures. We take all allegations of torture or mistreatment very seriously.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The Prime Minister has said:

“As we face threats to our peace and prosperity from autocratic states, it is vital that democracies and friends stick together.”

Does the Minister therefore agree, given the issues in respect of detention and torture, that we must not shrink from letting democratic friends know when they have fallen short on what we take to be shared values, especially around allegations of torture?

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his specific campaigning on behalf of his constituent. As I say, we take all allegations of torture and mistreatment very seriously. In his constituent’s case, we take all allegations of human rights violations seriously, and Ministers and senior officials have raised Mr Johal’s allegations of torture and the right to a fair trial with the Government of India more than 70 times. Both the Foreign Secretary and Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon have raised his case, and we have regularly raised it through officials. The hon. Gentleman campaigns passionately on behalf of his constituent, and I know that he raised his case with the Prime Minister yesterday in the House.

Iran Detainees

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituent on the work she has done to campaign for Nazanin’s release. The hon. Lady is right: we cannot let this happen again. This needs to be about what we do as the United Kingdom and how we work with our international allies to make sure that there are not incentives in place for these regimes to carry out arbitrary detention.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is right and proper that the House congratulates the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team on delivering on real diplomatic action—it is great to see. We congratulate the hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on a job well done as parliamentary representatives; it is a great honour to sit in any Parliament and that is the job of an MP. We also congratulate the families, who are watching. I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary talk about arbitrary detention and how we can work with other countries to ensure that not only dual nationals or tri nationals, but full UK nationals are not arbitrarily detained, no matter our friendships with countries. Further to the point raised, I believe, by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who is no longer in their place, the Foreign Secretary said that they would be meeting families who are detained. In that spirit of collaboration and working together, will the Foreign Secretary consider meeting me and the family of Jagtar Singh Johal to understand the issue of arbitrary detention for other states? It would be a most welcome deliberation for the future.

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I said, I have raised this specific case, but I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss it further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

I completely agree about the importance of British International Investment across the world. I point to the firm statement that the Foreign Secretary gave to the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, in which she emphasised the need to strengthen our economic and defence relationship with India in order to pull it away from the orbit of authoritarian regimes such as Russia.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

With India arbitrarily detaining UK nationals such as my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal for over four years now and failing to defend the democratic right of national self-determination for Ukraine, can the Minister tell us how the trade negotiations are going?

[Vicky Ford]

Again, I point to the important statement that the Foreign Secretary made yesterday. It is vital that we continue to strengthen our economic and defence relationship with India. However, the constituency case of Jagtar Singh Johal that the hon. Gentleman mentions was raised by the Foreign Secretary recently with her counterparts in India.

Countering Russian Aggression and Tackling Illicit Finance

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

I told the House yesterday that I think we should have stronger sanctions. And it is not just about stronger sanction, as we also need stronger defence and more defence spending.

In the absence of any knowledge about the calibration of our response—that is not to say it does not exist—the sanctions were pitifully woeful. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been very underwhelmed by them.

We need to do everything we can to provide the Ukrainian Government with all the means required to defend themselves. That means economic support and additional supplies of lethal weapons with which to protect their sovereignty, primarily and hopefully to act as a deterrent but also, if it comes to it, for use in battle. If Russia does invade, there will be an ongoing resistance to support. NATO must also continue its programme of beefing up deployments across eastern Europe, the high north and the Black sea. We must show to Russia that NATO is serious about protecting its members, and we must remind Russia of our article 5 undertaking.

There are people in this country who say this is overly aggressive, but we should make it absolutely clear in this place that we do not seek conflict. I was a soldier back in the 1980s, and I remind the House that I have consistently voted against our military interventions over the past two decades. I opposed war in Iraq, believing that we went to war on a false premise. I opposed the morphing of the mission in Afghanistan after we had got rid of al-Qaeda in 2001. I was the only Conservative MP to vote against our Libyan intervention. And I opposed trying to arm certain sections of the rebels in Syria, as I felt that we underestimated the task at hand and that those weapons would have fallen into the wrong hands. I was opposed to all of that, but, as a former soldier, I also recognise that strong armed forces are the best way of deterring aggression.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

On deterrence after the fall of the Soviet Union, this political state, along with a range of other western states, gave opportunity for finance through oligarchy yet ignored ordinary Russians. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if we had supported ordinary Russians to get the benefits of freedom and liberty in the west through golden visas for them, we would not now have 190,000 Russian troops on the borders of Ukraine?

[Mr Baron]

That is a bit of a tenuous link. Let us be clear: an aggressor is going to consider invading a country regardless of what visas have been given in a third country. Having said that, I agree that we need to look at this, and I made that point clear when I first stood up.

We need to be clear that we need strong defence. One reason I opposed those recent interventions over the past 20 years is because I felt that they distracted us from the real business of countering traditional state-on-state threats. War should always be a means of last resort, once all other avenues have been exhausted, but the real danger was state-on-state threats, including Russia and, increasingly, an assertive China. We all know that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but jaw-jaw is most effective when supported and backed up by strong armed forces, because potential adversaries then listen. After a decade of hollowing out our defence capabilities and cutting the number of soldiers, we need to get serious about defence and reverse those trends. The Prime Minister is right to say that we have had the largest increase in the defence budget since the end of the cold war—we are standing at about 2.4%, if we believe Government figures—but I suggest that we need to do much more. We still have the smallest Army since the Napoleonic times, if not before. We still have too few ships able to guard our aircraft carriers, and our air defences are thin. As a former soldier, I can promise the House that there is no substitute for boots on the ground. I buy the technology argument—everything about drones and how we have to be up to speed with cyber and all the rest—but there is no substitute for boots on the ground if we want to dominate ground. That is a simple fact.

I ask the Government to seriously think about this, but I also ask the Opposition to do so. For 20 years I have been in this place and I have banged on, together with others, on both sides of the House, about the need for increased defence spending. That has largely fallen on deaf ears. Some Opposition Members will remember that in 2013 I led the revolt from those on the Government Benches on the Bill that became the Defence Reform Act 2014, which was cutting regular troops and trying to replace them with reservists. With the help of the Scottish nationalists and Labour, we tried to get the Government to think again. Unfortunately, I was unable to carry a sufficient number of Conservative Members, but we came close. So I am not standing here being a hypocrite and suggesting this in a way to try to make party political points. I am asking the Labour party, the official Opposition, to do something. The establishment in this country still does not get it on defence. We need a substantial and sustained increase in defence spending, to act as a deterrent, not to be used in an offensive manner. Deterrence is the best way.

The Labour party has a very proud history in this area. It was a Labour Government who signed us up to NATO and who were determined that we had a nuclear deterrent. I suggest to the official Opposition that we need to start at 3% for defence spending but not tie this to a particular percentage of GDP, because GDP fluctuates. We need to start at 3% and then build on it, because we are entering an era where there is a battle for democracy yet to be had. I hope I am not being too dramatic when I say that. We need strong armed forces for that, and the Labour party, the official Opposition, has a role in this.

Having these debates is great, but we have had them so many times before about defence spending and other issues and interventions. If the Labour party was to say, “We are going to commit to a substantial and sustainable level of defence spending”, it would move the dial in the debate. The official Opposition would be surprised at just how much support there is on the Conservative Benches for a substantial increase in defence spending—well above the 2.4% figure we heard bandied about by the Prime Minister yesterday. The official Opposition have an opportunity to move the dial on this, and I encourage them to take it. This is an important issue on the doorstep, contrary to what many people suggest; people are proud of their armed forces. There is also an opportunity to be a force of good for the Union, as we are proud of our armed forces across the four nations of the UK.

I am conscious that others wish to speak, but may I briefly return to this point about the new era we have now entered with regard to the battle for democracy? We believed that democracy would sweep the field after the cold war, because it was blatantly obvious that it was the right thing, but democracy is a fragile concept. We fundamentally believe in it in this place, but let us never underestimate the number of oligarchs and totalitarian individuals out there—states, even—who want to overthrow democracy. We have to nurture, encourage and protect it. But what are we doing? We have a weak foreign policy when it comes to potential aggressors, and not just potential ones; when there is an invasion of a sovereign country we are debating quite petty sanctions. We need to step up to the plate.

I also suggest to the House that this is not just about hard power—quite the contrary, as the cold war was won largely because we won the soft power battle. We need to further finance our diplomatic sources and our diplomacy generally. One reason why I voted against the Libyan intervention, when I was the only Tory to do so and was very unpopular with my own party, was because we simply did not know what was happening on the ground. We did not have the diplomats there kicking the tyres and feeling the dust. We used to have great expertise in this area but we have hollowed it out, through cuts, and those cuts can be counterproductive. They can be a false economy. If we do not know what is happening on the ground, these decisions are much riskier. Satellites and technology take us only so far; we need experts on the ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way to stop that flow up the Thames is to abolish unincorporated associations, which are utilised not only by political parties but by Members of Parliament?

[Bob Seely]

I do not know enough about that, so I will have to respect the experts’ opinions, but the hon. Gentleman makes a potentially valid point.

I would like us to look at the economic crime Bill; most importantly, given that not enough people are talking about it, I suggest a foreign lobbying Bill. I also respectfully suggest amendments to data protection and libel laws. Many people have already talked about the economic crime Bill, but it is shocking that we have 2,000 UK-registered companies involved in laundering and corruption cases linked to Russia, involving £80 billion—staggering sums of money—and £1.5 billion of property owned by people close to Putin or involved in crime and corruption.

I understand that historically the City wanted a light touch, to be more competitive than New York, but on the back of that light touch we have taken in some very unsavoury kleptocrats and oligarchs, and the tide of dirty money is damaging us. Why on earth do we need a culture of shadowy offshore trusts in this country? In what way does it help? I know it enriches a few thousand people with fancy bonuses, but in what way does it help our national interests? It is great that the Home Secretary has stopped the golden visa scheme, but really that horse bolted a long time ago.

On foreign lobbying laws, the UK is an influence-peddler’s paradise. Oligarchs pay for the best PR and the best reputation-launderers, and they pay for senior politicians to navigate through the rules. I understand that some people are attacking the Conservatives in this regard. I do not support wrongdoing on any side, any more than I support Alex Salmond tarting himself around Russia Today. Does anyone wish to defend Peter Mandelson’s record—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Seely]

I will make some progress.

Does anyone here respect Peter Mandelson, or does anyone want to—

[Bob Seely]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would anyone like to defend the actions of various peers who have defended—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Maybe we could ask the hon. Gentleman about the £5,000 donation he took from the Conservatives’ Patrons Club, which is an unincorporated association?

[Bob Seely]

I have a Patrons Club on the Isle of Wight. Their structure is legal. I am afraid I do not know more about it, but if the hon. Gentleman wants more information, I am sure I can find it. I find his remark tediously parochial and completely out of character with the serious nature of this debate, and more fool him for making it.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

rose—

[Bob Seely]

I shall make some progress and not take another intervention, thank you so much.

When we are talking about influence, we need to be talking about the influence that senior peers and former Prime Ministers may offer. These are not unsavoury characters in this country but they are doing some very unsavoury business working for people who know the value of reputation-laundering and of using the City and our legal culture. The Guardian takes these things very seriously, and yet on the Scott Trust for many years, and now on The Guardian’s board, we have Geraldine Proudler. According to Bill Browder, Geraldine Proudler was on the wrong side of the Magnitsky case. She gave legal advice to people involved in allegedly organised crime with a multi-million-pound fraud that was involved ultimately in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky. So again I ask Katharine Viner: if The Guardian is so keen to make sure that the Conservatives, and indeed Labour and the SNP, obey high standards in public life, why does Geraldine Proudler sit on the Scott Trust board and now the Guardian Foundation? These are serious questions for those on both sides of the House. I do not defend those peers who have gone to work for Deripaska and other people, but neither should Opposition Members defend those peers who do the wrong thing.

One of the most depressing things about the Intelligence and Security Committee report on Russia was the statement from the National Crime Agency that it felt that it was unable at times to take on certain potentially bad actors because those bad actors’ pockets were so deep. I am sorry, but if the NCA is saying that it is unable to uphold the law in this country because of the wealth of the bad people it wants to go after, we are knowingly participating in the undermining of the rule of law in this country, and that is an extraordinarily serious and bad thing to be happening.

We had a great debate on lawfare, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) have also talked about it. Some of the most sophisticated law firms in Britain are offering intimidation, kompromat and dirt-digging services to some of the most corrupt people on earth. When we talk about an economic crime Bill or a foreign lobbying Bill, can we also talk about amendments to data protection law and to libel law to ensure that we uphold freedom of speech and ensure that those journalists trying to do the right thing in trying to investigate bad actors are supported by the law and not hounded to financial ruin?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I think I have been here before. We have discussed the role of unincorporated associations in providing a loophole for political campaign finance in the UK, particularly for the Conservative party, and notably, the role of the Constitutional Research Council, which seeks to promote the Union in all its parts. We are all mindful of the £435,000 that it donated to the DUP during the Brexit campaign.

Although I knew we were sure to hear a fairly good overview of the myriad examples of Tories having their mouths full of Russian gold this afternoon, along with the excellent article by John Kampfner in this morning’s edition of The Times, I realised that it might be worth considering a longer view of the modern history of illicit finance in this political state. I support the official Opposition’s motion but I will give a broader historical narrative as to why we are where we are.

The excellent work done by Peter Geoghegan at openDemocracy on campaign finance and by David Leask in The Herald, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), on the abuse of Scottish limited partnerships deserves greater scrutiny. I also refer hon. Members to my Westminster Hall debate in February 2019 on the saga of unincorporated associations. The whole morass of state capture by financial interests, often from overseas, was not inevitable and could have been avoided.

Oliver Bullough, who has done so much to document the nexus of Russian illicit finance and political influence, has written quite a few times about the advent of the Eurodollar age, as the Soviet Union found a rather deflated 1960s City of London a willing recipient of its foreign exchange reserves and the modern practice of offshore financing was born. That was just the start, however, of the competitive advantage that the City enjoyed when the sluice gates were opened.

It was to the great detriment of the good people of Russia that at the very moment they were experiencing economic shock therapy and the systemic looting of their country’s great wealth, those looking for convenient places to stash the loot were welcomed—I have to say; it is a historical reality—by a new Labour Government desperate to show that they could be trusted to do right by the City. That is well documented. I will just dip into the economist Brett Christophers’ superb book “Rentier Capitalism”:

“It was New Labour that in the late 1990s shrunk the City’s regulatory system into the minimalist form of the Financial Services Authority...the FSA’s architects and administrators were themselves entirely up-front about just how hands-off and permissive this pared-down new regulator would be.”

The alarm bells were already ringing for those who could see what was happening in Russia after 1999. I have spoken about John Kampfner’s article in The Times today, and I think we should be really mindful of some of the other things he has said in the past.

It is not as though the signs were not there for the wider public. In 2006, not only did Putin’s increasingly murderous domestic agenda become clearer with the assassination of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya, but he began to demonstrate the contempt with which he saw the UK with the cruel and calculated murder of Alexander Litvinenko here in London. I am afraid that that began under the premiership of Tony Blair, and the phrase “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” seems to ring a wee bit hollow.

We all know very well what happened next, and we have had a pretty good run through the ways that the looted wealth of the Russian people—ordinary Russians who, as I mentioned earlier, should maybe have been given the golden visas to come here and enjoy the benefits of freedom and democracy—has entered the body politic not only in buying football clubs, art galleries and prestige property, but in keeping private schools and charitable foundations, as well as Members on both sides of the other Chamber, financially solvent.

The UK often likes to see itself as some sort of soft underbelly of superpower, but that soft power has never been as soft an underbelly as it is now, in that too many of our ruling class have been happy to have been rubbed. We are beginning to see the results of this almost three decades-long infatuation with illicit Russian finance, and I have to say that I cannot help but wonder if we are not correct in concluding that this very fabric of the British political state really could not help itself.

Consular Support for British Citizens

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is always good to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I hope his new blue passport will open up doors on the issue we are discussing today—even though the passports are made in France.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and their staff—their team; I hate the word “staff”—for the immense work they have done on behalf of the all-party group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance, of which I am also a member. I also thank the all-party group for coming together in a cross-party sense to discuss an issue that crosses the desks of Members of this House more regularly than ever before. Importantly, I also thank the families that gave evidence to the all-party group. I want to specifically concentrate on the families of my constituents: Lisa Brown, believed murdered in Spain, is still missing and Jagtar Singh Johal is being arbitrarily detained in the Republic of India, now for a fourth year.

Let me take Lisa’s family’s case first. I have been part of it since her sister and brother first came to me and my team. Their experience is in some ways not dissimilar to that of the vast majority of those who seek Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office support for someone believed murdered and missing abroad. There was limited information via a consular office in a location with a high percentage of UK nationals either living there or on holiday. There was scrabbling around for translators and lawyers. All the while the family were dealing with the trauma of a missing sister presumed murdered who has a young son left behind. Sadly, the case of Lisa is still open. During this time Lisa’s mother sadly died without the answers she and the rest of Lisa’s family have required.

Then there is the case of Jagtar Singh Johal, with which I hope the Chamber is well acquainted, who was abducted in the streets of the Republic of India, with an accusation of torture against the state of India, an ally and a member of the Commonwealth. No charges have yet been placed, there is consistent postponement by Indian judicial authorities every time the case comes to court, and there has been the familiar “We can’t do this and we can’t do that” approach over a broad swathe of the period of his detention.

Like many others, I lost count of the number of consular staff who were moved during the last four years of Jagtar’s detention, but let me put on the record once again my thanks to those staff in the FCDO who have gone beyond the call of duty to support my constituent and his family. They are not paid appropriately, they have been moved from pillar to post and—I have to be very clear—there has been a lack of political leadership on this issue. I have also lost count of the number of Prime Ministers, Foreign Secretaries and Under-Secretaries we have had, not only in Jagtar’s case but in every other case that the report mentions. In the last four years, we have seen three Prime Ministers, five Foreign Secretaries and three Under-Secretaries. That demonstrates the issue of political leadership.

I pay tribute to the families: to Lisa’s family and to Jagtar’s family. What all the families in the report understand—my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston alluded to this, and I hope the Minister takes it in a cross-party sense—is the requirement to consider the enshrinement in law of the right to consular assistance. Murder victims and those considered murdered overseas should get parity with victims of terror, and the criminal compensation scheme should be amended accordingly.

The FCDO and the Ministry of Justice here in England—again, my hon. Friend alluded to this—should make targeted assessments of who gets help and what that looks like, to assist the families and, more importantly, to inform the future provision of consular services and plan the delivery of the improved service that Members have alluded to. If we do not gain the facts, we cannot improve the service. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), talking about their Committee’s report on the treatment of women in the armed forces, that if we do not do the groundwork and understand what is going on, we cannot make change. In addition, the Government should publish an introductory range, but not an exhaustive list, of what basic assistance families and individuals can gain from the FCDO online process—of what basic assistance people should expect.

There must also be timely reviews of local legal representatives and translation services. Members have alluded to people picking up the phone to someone who not only does not speak English but wants €25,000 up front. There need to be consistent reviews, at least twice a year, but we would leave it to the appropriate officials to recognise what needs to be done to improve the basic access to information and legal and translation services.

Fundamentally, we must provide a substantial budgetary increase for consular support teams, not only in Whitehall and in embassies, but in those consular offices where large numbers of UK and Northern Ireland nationals are traditionally found either living or holidaying, such as on the eastern coast of Spain.

[Hannah Bardell]

My hon. Friend’s point about tourism hotspots, and Spain particularly, is really important. I went to Madrid with my chief of staff, Stephanie, and met the ambassador and the staff in the embassy and the consulate who deliver the services. They could see the value and the opportunity in improving services and communication and in having a proper link-up. That is one of the recommendations that we want to put in place—a protocol to ensure that people travelling from the UK to Spain have a higher level of service, because so many tourists go there from Britain.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which makes my point. If the United Kingdom Government want to be global Britain, they should be the global Britain of the 21st century, not buccaneers going into the Caribbean or the Indo-Pacific. This really is about recognising what is happening to citizens on the ground on a regular basis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) alluded to, it is not irregular to hear of these cases anymore. It is not regular, but it is not irregular and we, as Members, face these tasks on a more regular basis.

Finally, let me pay tribute not only to the family of Lisa Brown and Jagtar Singh Johal, but to all the families mentioned in the report. I hope the Minister will understand that it comes from a place of wanting to work together, so that no other family is left without access to appropriate support, that no other person is left in a hospital dead with their family having to have crowdfunders to bring them home, and that families are met if they are going to visit someone in prison, whether it be in the Republic of India, Iran, Australia or the United States. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston for securing this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

We always seek to hear feedback from those who have to use the FCDO’s services, and I would be more than happy to discuss the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring after the debate at another point.

We have to be clear about what levels of service the FCDO can and cannot provide. We are not funded to pay for legal, medical or translation costs, but the consular staff will signpost sources of help.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

If there were clarity about the basics of what the consular service can do, it would be a start. It could be put online and regularly reviewed.

[Amanda Milling]

Hopefully some of the improvements that we are continuing to make in the service will address some of the points that have been raised today.

One of the points that was raised earlier related to lawyer lists. Our posts overseas maintain lists of English-speaking lawyers who are qualified to act in an overseas jurisdiction. That is published on gov.uk. We welcome feedback, but we cannot provide specific recommendations. That said, we are considering how we can make these online lists more accessible and easier to navigate.

I mentioned how consular staff can signpost sources of help and, for example, we work closely with and fund specialist organisations that provide assistance we cannot provide, such as counselling, legal advice and support with translation and repatriation. This includes the Victim Support homicide service, Prisoners Abroad, Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis, and travel care providers and chaplaincies at major UK airports. We publish full details online of what the FCDO can and cannot do to support British nationals abroad. We will publish a refreshed and updated version next year.

When British nationals are detained overseas, their health and welfare is our top priority. We make every effort to ensure prisoners receive adequate food, water and medical treatment and that they have access to legal advice. When we hear about a detention or arrest, our consular staff attempt to contact the individual as soon as possible. How frequently we visit will depend on the nature and context of the case, but we are aware that our visits are a lifeline for many detainees, and that our staff are the only visitors that some will receive.

However, we do not and must not interfere in civil and criminal court proceedings. It is right that we respect the legal systems of other countries, just as we expect foreign nationals to respect our laws and legal processes when they are in the UK.

[Amanda Milling]

I will make progress, if the hon. Lady does not mind.

We can and do intervene on behalf of British nationals where they are not treated in line with internationally accepted standards or if there are unreasonable delays in procedures.

We take allegations of torture or mistreatment incredibly seriously. Although we cannot investigate allegations ourselves, with the consent of the individual we can raise the allegations with local authorities to demand an end to the mistreatment and to demand that the incidents are investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. Our priority is always to serve the best interests of the individual. Any decisions on the action we might take in response to allegations of mistreatment are made on a case-by-case basis and only with the individual’s consent.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Given that there is clear evidence that my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal has been arbitrarily detained, why will the Government not agree that this UK citizen is being arbitrarily detained by the Republic of India?

[Amanda Milling]

We take all allegations of human rights violations seriously, and the Foreign Secretary, ministerial colleagues and senior officials have raised Mr Johal’s allegations of torture and his right to a fair trial with the Government of India more than 70 times.

There is no legal right to consular assistance. As colleagues will know, the UK is party to the Vienna convention on consular relations, a multilateral agreement setting out how states will co-operate in support of their nationals overseas. Our ability to provide consular assistance remains, at all times, dependent on states respecting the Vienna convention, and it must be done in accordance with the laws of that country. Even if a right to consular assistance were enshrined in domestic law, our ability to provide it overseas would continue to remain wholly dependent on the co-operation of host states. It would not help many of our most complex cases.

As I set out earlier, we continually seek to improve our consular services. We welcome feedback, and we use it to improve our services and to provide the best possible assistance. We have learned lessons during the pandemic about how we can operate remotely. We are not complacent about the overwhelmingly positive feedback we receive, and I acknowledge that there are always areas where we can improve. We have a dedicated learning team, who ensure that our staff have the knowledge and skills they need to support British nationals. We have, for instance, included testimony from bereaved families in our training modules on how to support people bereaved through murder and manslaughter. It helps staff to understand the perspective of somebody needing that assistance. We also have a robust complaints process for those who feel that we have not provided the service that they needed. I want to reiterate our openness to working with others, particularly the all-party group, to ensure that British nationals receive the right support, tailored to their circumstances.

To conclude, our consular staff at home and abroad work extremely hard to support British nationals in distress and their families, often in difficult circumstances. We take every single consular case seriously. Our trained and expert staff work with empathy and aim to offer the help that is needed, be that advice or practical support. They are not lawyers, medics, police detectives or social workers, but what they try to do is ensure that British people have the information and support they need to help them deal with the situation they face.

Magnitsky Sanctions: Human Rights Abuses

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. Let me congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on gaining the debate and the members of the all-party group on the work that they have undertaken to highlight the deep and profoundly worrying human rights abuses across the world.

I am sure we all agree that the abuse of individuals, political and religious groups, and, indeed, minorities across the world by a range of global state actors is well documented, but less well documented are the lesser-known non-state actors now participating in the field of human rights abuse. Nevertheless, the systematic utilisation of global finance to enable those crimes against humanity in many ways remains cloaked in secrecy, underpinned by the rightly named—at least as I see it—dark money.

Dark money is an issue that I and many of my SNP colleagues have taken a keen interest in since 2015. Like the hon. Member for Rhondda in relation to today’s debate, we do so for good reason, believing in an open, transparent political process founded on the rule of law, and believing in parliamentary democracy—a model that seeks to hold Government to account for their actions.

It used to be said that all roads lead to Rome—a very lovely place indeed—yet from my perspective in the political world today, especially in the age of dark money, the road always seems to lead to the Kremlin. The debate takes its name from the late Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer to whom the hon. Gentleman alluded. Magnitsky uncovered large-scale tax fraud while working for Hermitage Capital based here in London. Sergei, as we know, died in a Russian prison owing to mistreatment.

It is also well known that the previous Government believed that the then existing fraud legislation was actually enough. In February 2018, the then Foreign Secretary, now the Prime Minister, argued that the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill provided enough powers. At least some of us would say that, luckily, the then Prime Minister recognised the opportunity to improve existing legislation, and the tone changed with the Government saying they would consider changes to Bill, which has been mentioned by Members previously. We are glad that those came forward.

During the debate, various Members have highlighted some of the most egregious abuses of the dignity of the rights of people and peoples across the globe, from the profoundly familiar way in which the Uyghur people are treated and herded by the Communist party of China to the killing and torture of protestors during the military coup in Sudan. Given that Members have gone into some detail on those points, I will not give another detailed exposition of inhumanity, so let me follow the money that might finance those abuses and undermine democratic governance. Specifically, I want to refer to Scottish shell companies that have siphoned billions of dollars, including from the former Soviet Union, and, in particular, the link, cited by David Leask of openDemocracy, to an Uzbek business empire.

Mr Leask highlights the fact that in a rather unassuming southside-of-Glasgow trademark tenement lies the official headquarters of a company known as Yardrock Development. The investigation by openDemocracy revealed that the company in question is linked to the Uzbek President, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, and it will come as no surprise that this company is a Scottish limited partnership—a company structure known globally as the UK’s “homegrown secrecy vehicle”. Indeed, in recent years, some SLPs have been blacklisted by the United Nations Development Programme, and even by the World Bank, given the ongoing concerns relating to their ability to undermine transparency and good governance. SLPs are safe ports in a storm in murky waters for dark money. They are harbours offering access to doubtful financial probity and dodgy dealings.

Let us go back to Mr Leask’s investigation, which states that:

“In a report published this month, UzInvestigations, a group led by Professor Kristian Lasslett of Ulster University and supported by the Uzbek Forum for Human Rights, found that eight SLPs, including Yardrock Development, owned a total of more than $128m worth of equity in Orient Group companies… UzInvestigations said the Orient Group had risen in prominence with the support of the Uzbek state”

and its leadership—a company with direct links to the President via one of the owning group’s founders and shareholders, Oybek Umarov, who is

“a brother of Otabek Umarov, deputy head of the Presidential Security Service and Mirziyoyev’s son-in-law”.

Additionally, UzInvestigations has highlighted that another senior executive is even the

“son of a serving minister.”

Mr Leask’s investigation also states:

“Umida Niyazova, director of the Uzbek Forum for Human Rights, echoed Lasslett’s concerns. ‘As more wealth accumulates in the hands of those close to senior state officials, the link between extreme economic and political power becomes stronger,’ she said, adding: ‘This is a significant threat to any prospect of democratisation in Uzbekistan.’”

This is a slippery slope of authoritarianism, ably assisted by nepotism and Scottish limited partnerships. If allowed to go unchallenged, corruption in a political process undermines the rule of law, undermines the courts and undermines public confidence in liberal democracy. Corruption opens the door to the abuse of the person, a collective of people, a culture and a political movement. It emboldens those who use dark money to facilitate it. The role of SLPs in Uzbekistan cannot be glibly ignored.

We need only look at what is happening in Hong Kong, which has been mentioned briefly. Hong Kong might not have been in the news as much as it was previously, but that is largely due to the Communist party’s national security law. Let us be under no illusion: what we are witnessing is the death of democracy in Hong Kong.

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. May I encourage the hon. Gentleman to wrap up his speech?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I will indeed, Mrs Miller; I will come to a conclusion in just a moment.

What we are seeing in Hong Kong are freedoms being destroyed and the rule of law, democracy and the right to freedom of expression being totally undermined by the Communist party. Will the Minister give us some clarity on the position on Hong Kong and those in the Communist party of Hong Kong? Can the Minister state that the Government recognise the impact of Scottish limited partnerships on the future of democracy—not only on these islands, but in Uzbekistan—and their role in facilitating the movement of finance that is used to undermine human rights across the globe?

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will mention the other dual nationals who are imprisoned in Iran. As he says, Nazanin is not the only one.

I want to go back to the question of the debt before I take another intervention. When Nazanin was captured and put in solitary confinement in Evin prison, she was told by prison guards that the reason she was being held was because of our failure to pay this historic debt. Former President Rouhani told our Prime Minister in March this year that accelerating the payment on the debt would solve a lot of the problems in the bilateral relationship between Iran and our country. Iran’s former Foreign Minister Zarif also cited the debt in an article. There is no question but that the debt is linked to Nazanin’s case.

We have seen that it is not a coincidence: every time there is any movement on the IMS court hearing, there is some movement on Nazanin’s case. When the IMS court hearing was delayed earlier this year, Nazanin received a call a week later saying, “Come to court, because we need to speak to you.” There is no coincidence, because the two are linked. What frustrates me so much is that every time I speak to the Government, they seem to bury their head in the sand and deny that there is a link.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. I wonder whether they, like me, believe that for cases such as Nazanin’s and that of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, having a fully resourced consular support service that enables diplomats rather than hindering them, so that families can have confidence in that consular support, is the least that the Government can provide for them and for the rest of us?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I fully agree. One of the biggest disappointments has been that British officials will not go to the court hearings for Nazanin when she is called back to court. That is something we have been asking for again and again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)]

I salute the quiet dignity of Richard Ratcliffe, who is one of the bravest people I have ever met. I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her campaigning. We are from different parties, but she makes me proud to be a Member of this House.

How do we get Nazanin, Anoosheh, Morad and Mehran home? If it were ransom money, heartbreaking though it is, we should not pay it, because it would only lead to more hostages being taken. But it is not ransom money; it is a historical debt that we owe Iran. The debt should not be linked to this case, but it is, and that is why we should pay it. It is not easy to do because of sanctions, but with political will it can be done. No country can have a veto over a sovereign Britain deciding to pay its debt, not least the United States, because it did exactly the same thing under President Obama.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

When the right hon. Gentleman was Foreign Secretary, were they advised by senior civil servants that this money would not be paid, and what was the answer in Cabinet?

[Jeremy Hunt]

I believe that during the period when I was Foreign Secretary, the decision whether we owed that money was settled. There was an understanding, confirmed publicly by the Defence Secretary, that the money is owed and should be paid. It was going to take, and will take, a real effort to deal with the practicalities. But the Americans managed it and we can most certainly manage it, if necessary by getting an RAF plane to fly gold over to Tehran. There are lots of ways of doing it.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan: Joint Committee

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

At a juncture such as this, we are forced to think about what could have been done better and whether such a large-scale intervention could ever have resulted in the establishment of a functioning polyarchy in the rocky soil of Afghanistan. If we want to get into such a question, we have to follow the money.

We have all seen news reports of the massive sums that the United States, the UK and other western allies invested in Afghanistan—eye-watering amounts that no doubt could have been put to better use in many ways. Many Members will have seen various images of Taliban fighters entering the gaudy palaces of former Afghan Government officials, generals or businessmen—some appeared to be all three at once—in which they are playing on gym equipment, marvelling at the décor or sitting in vast empty banqueting halls. Such venal officials make an easy target for scorn, but while they must share their part of the blame for the plunder of Afghanistan, we, too, must ask how they were able to get away with it for so long.

While it is easy to put the worst excesses of coalition control in Afghanistan down to an inherently corrupt culture—an accusation that we know to be orientalist, discriminatory, racist and ultimately wrong, regardless of how many times it is levelled inside or outside this House—we need to consider the fact that corrupt officials needed ways to get their money out of Afghanistan and into bank accounts or assets abroad. So too did the Taliban: they needed need a way to finance their campaign, converting the money they made from opium production or donations into liquid cash that could evade the clutches of security officials in third countries. In the case of both the Taliban and Afghan Government officials, Dubai seems to have been where the alchemy took place. Money came in, money went out; our armed forces were killed, and schools and hospitals went unbuilt.

The questions we need to be asking in this place, however, are about how many financial institutions with links to, or even head offices in, the City of London played a part in the merry-go-round of corruption. Quite frankly, I do not care whether that is looked at by a Joint Committee of the House, the individual Select Committees or—more importantly—a judge-led committee. Whether we like it or not, while much of it took place elsewhere, it could well have been in London—[Interruption.] With due respect, the Minister might listen to what I am saying than have a discussion with my colleagues.

London remains the centre of networks that facilitate corruption and graft on a large scale. London property prices remain inflated by investments—large and small—by global elites looking for a safe haven for all their ill-gotten gains, something most memorably demonstrated by the anti-corruption expert Oliver Bullough in his book “Moneyland”. No matter how many times my SNP colleagues or I raise the issue of corruption, we must understand that we need to tackle it, no matter what. I say as a member of the Defence Committee and as someone whose brother served twice in Afghanistan—the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), was his commanding officer—that our armed forces’ will never be applied adequately as long as we allow corruption to flourish at home and abroad.

Afghanistan: FCDO Responses to Members

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point about the Afghans whom we were able to help. During the process, we have always prioritised our ability to get people at risk out of Afghanistan—including Sir Laurie at the Baron hotel, shortly before the explosion, to help facilitate the processing of Afghans leaving. We endeavoured both to get them out and to keep Members informed, but we will prioritise getting people out.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The French Republic began its evacuation by 10 May and it was completed four weeks before the fall of the city of Kabul; meanwhile, a fortnight before, the British Government—the Minister’s Government—were still sending asylum seekers back from the UK. Would it not be right that if the Minister had talked to his colleagues in the French Republic, Members on both sides would not be in this ridiculous position? The reality is, it is an utter failure of political leadership at the heart of the Government that has allowed this to happen.

[James Cleverly]

The ARAP scheme to help repatriate Afghans who had worked directly with us was put in place in April this year. The FCDO travel advice was updated in April and, prior to mid-August, many thousands had already left Afghanistan. I absolutely reject the hon. Member’s point. We should remember that this is the largest and most complex evacuation scheme that the Government have ever had to deal with—certainly in anyone’s living memory.

Detention of Jagtar Singh Johal

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the detention of Jagtar Singh Johal.

It is good to see you, Mr Hollobone, in the Chair and to see that so many Members have been able to join us, either physically or virtually. Members joining the debate today, either here in the Boothroyd Room or online, will be glad to hear first that I intend to keep my contribution relatively short today. I only really have one question to ask the Minister, and I think that Jagtar’s case will be best served by allowing other diverse voices from across these islands to speak on his behalf and to demonstrate to the UK Government that there will be no let-up until Jagtar is released.

Let us get to my question for the Minister, which I will ask again when I sum up: why have the UK Government deemed that Jagtar Singh Johal’s detention is not an arbitrary one? Of course, many other questions today will flow from this one and I am sure that we will hear it being asked in other guises over the next hour. But the Crown’s Minister must answer it.

I have raised the case of Jagtar Singh Johal with Ministers almost 20 times since my first point of order about it on 15 November 2017. The week after that, I first raised it at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions, when the allegation of torture was still fresh. The House of Commons was told by the then Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who was responsible for consular policy, that

“We will work very closely to investigate the matter and will, of course, take extreme action if a British citizen is being tortured.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 858.]

That Minister is no longer in the Government—indeed, he is no longer even a member of the Conservative party. Nevertheless, when a Minister speaks from the Dispatch Box, we should be assured that their words will be believed. I still remember my own surprise that day at hearing the use of the words “extreme action”, but both the Singh Johal family and I would be content right now with a simple ruling of arbitrary detention and for the concomitant obligations to kick in.

I have spoken at length about many aspects of this case on many occasions, most notably in an Adjournment debate on the first anniversary of Jagtar’s detention on 27 November 2018. I do not intend to go over too much of that material again, but it is worth remembering how this case began.

Jagtar was a young man from Dumbarton, fresh from his wedding that week, who was enjoying his time with his new bride in Jalandhar, until suddenly a group of unidentifiable men in plain clothes leapt from a van, hit him and took him away. I am sure that we can all appreciate the terror and helplessness that his wife must have experienced in that moment—it would be unimaginable. The next few days, as Jagtar was held incommunicado, must have seemed like an eternity. Allegations of torture—and more recently, the reality of covid in an overcrowded maximum security prison half a world away—have weighed heavily on the family. I must say that their resilience in the face of this ordeal has been extraordinary.

By my reckoning, Jagtar has now been detained for 1,335 days without any substantial charges being brought in the case—that is coming up to four years. We know that the FCDO had been looking at a designation of arbitrary detention and, from conversations with Ministers of all levels, we know that they have been thinking about this for some time. This issue must surely have grown more recently. In January, we were glad of the estimation made by the charity Redress that Jagtar’s detention was an arbitrary one, and even more so when a cross-party group of 140 MPs signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary asking him to ensure that the FCDO intervenes to secure Jagtar’s release, as he himself is on record restating the policy quite recently.

Given that it is the opinion of Reprieve and Redress and their legal counsel that Jagtar’s detention is a clear breach of categories 1 to 4 of the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention’s definition, I again ask the Minister why the UK Government do not share that view. I expect the Minister to speak about many of the things that the UK Government have been doing for Jagtar, so please let me put on the record—I also do so on behalf of the family—that the work of the FCDO staff, both in post and in the prisoner policy and human rights team of the consular directorate here in London, has been immense. There has been immense support for the family and myself. They have diligently undertaken all that has been asked of them—and gone above and beyond on occasion, as I am sure they will know. I am only sorry that convention does not allow me to thank them by name.

However, these are civil servants who pursue their work through a framework established by their political masters. It would be remiss of me not to mention some of the issues that FCDO Ministers have either allowed to pass by or should immediately seek to remedy, beginning with the failure to ensure that an independent medical examination was undertaken to establish the facts around the allegations of torture made by Jagtar against the Punjabi police. There is the continuing lack of private consular visits, and the continuing reluctance of the Secretary of State specifically to meet with Jagtar’s family and myself, as his predecessor did. Finally, there is the decision of the Prime Minister not to raise Jagtar’s case with Prime Minister Modi when they last spoke virtually in April.

Taken together, these issues tell me that we have a group of FCDO civil servants who are ready and able to implement Government policy, but senior Ministers who are reluctant to escalate representations beyond simply raising them with the Indian Government officials. If they can do so with Governments of other countries where UK nationals are arbitrarily detained, why can they not do so with the Republic of India? Doing so would not be intervening in the internal affairs of the Republic of India unnecessarily. I have been clear from the start of this case that all we ask for is transparent due process and rule of law. When at least two of these elements are missing, as was so clearly demonstrated at Jagtar’s 161st pre-trial hearing today, it is my responsibility as his local MP to ask why. Neither the Singh Johal family nor myself is asking for the “extreme action” that, as I mentioned, we were promised by the UK Government at the start of this process: we are asking them only to recognise an obvious fact.

This week, Jagtar was able to speak by video call with his brother for the first time since his incarceration. He was as good as could be expected under the circumstances, but most of all he wondered when he would get to see his family again in the flesh. That was a sobering moment for me. Jagtar Singh Johal is a husband, a son, a grandson, a brother, an uncle, and a son of the Rock of Dumbarton. He is arbitrarily detained in India. Why can the United Kingdom Government not recognise that? Let us get Jaggi released: let us bring him back to Scotland and let him see his family.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate will last until 5.50. I am obliged to call the Front Benchers no later than 5.27, and the guideline limits are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister, after which the Member in charge will have three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. There are nine Back-Bench contributors. If there are no interventions during Back-Bench speeches, we can have a three-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am very grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated, and to the Front Benchers, my good and hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). As a member of the Defence Committee, I am very much aware of the importance of the relationship with India, but it has to be a frank and upfront one. The Minister mentioned consular support, which I also mentioned in my speech, but it seems that arbitrary detention is clearly different when someone is held by Iran or China. He also mentioned the Government’s issues in relation to English law. Clearly, it is a pity that my constituent is not being assisted by Scots law.

With all due respect, the Minister for Asia, whose portfolio does not cover my constituent—it is covered by that of the Minister for South Asia—has failed to answer the intrinsic question: is this deemed arbitrary detention? The Government have failed to answer that question time and again. Time is up. We have had three Prime Ministers, four Foreign Secretaries, and so many Under-Secretaries that I have lost count. What will it take for the UK Government to answer the question: is this, or is this not, arbitrary detention?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the detention of Jagtar Singh Johal.