(5 days, 5 hours ago)
Commons Chamber
Douglas McAllister
I thank the team at Reprieve for their diligent support and assistance to me and to Jagtar over the last two years. However, since the meeting with the envoy, the family have received little information about what concrete action is being taken. I hope the Minister can provide greater clarity today. Can we have a timeline for action, given that Alistair Burt was appointed to the envoy role some months ago?
This week, the Scotland Secretary, the Business Secretary and the Environment Secretary were in India on a trade mission. That is a clear illustration of the fact that our Government are developing an increasingly strong working relationship with India. Given the strength of that relationship, there is no reason why we should not be raising Jagtar’s case at every opportunity. While I understand that this week’s visit was a trade mission, and that Jagtar’s situation may be an inconvenient truth, our Government need to do everything they can at this crucial time to ensure Jagtar’s safety.
The predominant fear is that Jagtar’s release on bail could be treated as the conclusion of this case, rather than the beginning of a critical new phase. Jagtar is not out of the woods yet: the threat of further proceedings is a reality, and the threat of the death penalty remains. The uncertainty and injustice prevail. That is precisely why our Government must act now. They could have intervened when he was first detained; they did not. They could have intervened when the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Jagtar was wrongfully imprisoned; they did not. They could and should have intervened when he was acquitted of all charges in the Moga district trial, but they did not.
This unfortunately is not the first debate that I have attended on behalf of Jagtar Singh Johal, and I commend the hon. Member for bringing this issue back to the Floor of the House. I was there when the previous Minister said that it was not in Jagtar’s interests to intervene and call for his release. That was about sending a signal. In fact, one of the signals that we now want to send is the offering to Jagtar of diplomatic protection. That would be of enormous significance to Jagtar, obviously, but it would also send a very potent signal to the Indian Government. Will he join me in saying that that is exactly the sort of thing we would like to hear from the Minister when he responds?
Douglas McAllister
The right hon. Member is 100% correct: that would be a very potent signal, and I am sure that that point has not been lost on the Minister. I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and for his long-standing and continued support for my constituent, which is greatly appreciated.
I am not here today to point the finger of blame at anyone specifically. We must work together with the Indian Government and use our close relationship. Right now, we have the best chance we will get to bring Jagtar Singh Johal back home to his family in Dumbarton. For years, Ministers could point to the fact that Jagtar remained imprisoned, and that court proceedings were ongoing. Today, the situation is different. Jagtar is no longer behind bars. The international pressure surrounding his case is growing, and the UN has repeatedly called for action. All the allegations against Jagtar have been tested in court, and Jagtar has been acquitted, yet with the duplicate cases against him remaining, a court has essentially acknowledged that proceedings may continue indefinitely.
If there was ever a moment to intensify diplomatic efforts, it is now. This is not the time for routine engagement and simply “raising” the case with Indian counterparts; it is the time for a co-ordinated, sustained and determined effort to bring the case to a conclusion and bring Jagtar home. The Government cannot change what happened in 2017, but they can help to determine what happens next. This may well be the best opportunity we have had in years to secure a just outcome, and I urge Ministers to seize it.
Jagtar’s case is not the only case of a British national arbitrarily detained abroad. Ryan Cornelius has been imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates since 2008. The UN working group on arbitrary detention found that his detention, like Jagtar’s, was arbitrary. His original sentence was extended by a further 20 years through the retrospective application of legislation, despite serious concerns regarding due process. Similarly, Jimmy Lai, a 78-year-old British citizen in Hong Kong, has now spent more than 1,800 days in detention. He was sentenced earlier this year to a lengthy prison term on national security charges, and faces what is now essentially a death sentence. Those cases are all different, but they share a common theme. When British citizens face arbitrary detention, unfair legal proceedings or serious human rights concerns overseas, our Government may be the only institution capable of advocating effectively on their behalf.
Every year, significant numbers of British citizens report torture or mistreatment while detained abroad. In many cases, diplomats are the only link between those individuals and the outside world. Parliament has a duty to ensure that such cases remain visible, and that Ministers continue to pursue them with determination. Jagtar’s release on bail is welcome, but it is crucial to remember that this case is not over. For too long, his case has been characterised by delay, uncertainty and missed opportunities. Now more than ever, there is a genuine opportunity to move things forward. The Government should treat this moment with the urgency and seriousness it deserves. I recognise that Ministers cannot direct foreign courts, and I recognise the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with India, but friendship between nations should never prevent us from standing up for the rights of our citizens. I strongly urge the Government to seize this opportunity and make resolving this case the diplomatic priority it should be.
Jagtar Singh Johal has lost almost nine years of his life. His family have lost almost nine years with their son, brother and husband. We cannot give those years back to them, but we can ensure that nine years does not become 10 years or more. I urge the Minister to please use every diplomatic channel available, engage at the highest levels of Government, press for a swift conclusion to the remaining proceedings, and work to secure Jagtar’s safe return home to my constituency of West Dunbartonshire.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kirsty McNeill
I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking my hon. Friend for his service. It was an extraordinary sacrifice by him and his family, and we are deeply grateful for it. I could not agree more that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders could not be more clear and must be respected.
I do not know whether this is something I still need to declare, Mr Speaker, but I visited the Falkland Islands in 2003 as a guest of the Falkland Islands Government. They have never invited me back. It was apparent then that the principle of self-determination, on which we fought and for which British service people lost their lives, remained unchanged. I have seen nothing to change that view today. When the Minister speaks with the American ambassador, might she gently remind them that in 1982 the Americans were not exactly full-throated in their support of us at that point? It made no difference then and it should make no difference now.
Kirsty McNeill
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his direct engagement with the Falkland Islanders—I know that such engagement is always appreciated by everyone in our British overseas territories—and as a direct result he has been able to impress on the House exactly what the Falkland Islanders want, which is their right to self-determination. He mentions our relationship with the United States. Because it is our closest ally, our relationship with the United States is one of candour, and it could not be clearer about our position, which is that the Falkland Islands will remain British for precisely as long as the Falkland Islanders want them to.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons Chamber
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to comment on the role that the United Nations has played in recent weeks, particularly the role of the IMO. We support the IMO’s efforts, because there are many seafarers whose welfare depends on being able to get out of the strait of Hormuz safely. We have been in regular contact with the IMO, and we support its efforts; it is absolutely vital that it can make them. For diplomatic reasons, I will decline to comment on age versus youth as a superior skill in diplomacy.
I am glad that the Minister made that point. May I welcome his acknowledgment and recognition of the implications for domestic industry of what is happening in the Gulf, especially for our food producers and food price inflation? The Minister’s Department has an enormous amount of expertise and knowledge. Will he give me some assurance that that expertise and knowledge is being deployed across Government so that we can mitigate the worst effects on our domestic economy, especially in relation to giving early warning of what is going on?
Mr Falconer
That is a very important question. I was involved in foreign affairs before I came to this House, and I recognise that, perhaps more so than in practically any period in recent history, foreign affairs determines the cost of living for every one of our constituents, and sets the circumstances in which every business in every constituency is now operating. The Foreign Office is seeking to play its full role across Government in helping British businesses and Britons to navigate what are difficult times.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI remind my hon. Friend that the Maduro regime was deeply authoritarian and corrupt, and it allowed countries such as Russia and Iran, as well as Hezbollah, to intervene and increase their influence in that country. We should not shed a tear for the end of the Maduro regime; what we should do is work for democracy. That is in our values, and that is what we will continue to do. We will also continue to stand up for international law.
The last time I saw this degree of agreement between Government and Opposition Front Benchers in relation to foreign policy was in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and we all know how that ended. But I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about being clear that the leadership of Venezuela must reflect the will of the Venezuelan people. So when she spoke to Secretary Rubio, did she condemn President Trump’s assertion that he should run Venezuela for the foreseeable future?
Obviously, in practice the US does not have boots on the ground in Venezuela, and the vice-president has been sworn in. We continue not to recognise the vice-president’s regime as legitimate in Venezuela and we are continuing to press for a democratic transition. I discussed with the US Secretary of State the importance of a democratic transition, the importance of working with the opposition, and the role that the UK could play in doing that. Ultimately, this has to be about ensuring that the will of the Venezuelan people is respected.
(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend will recognise that we have independent processes for the judiciary, but he is right to say that the rule of law is really important. It is an important issue for the UK, and we stand up for those values in all their dimensions. The Chinese authorities have increasingly spoken about the importance of the international rule of law, saying that major countries ought to provide leadership on the international rule of law. Again, our strong message to them is that, to show international leadership on the rule of law, they need to recognise their legal obligations, which are still present, to implement the declaration. That means ending the national security law and releasing Jimmy Lai.
There is a legitimate and necessary debate to be had on our wider foreign policy towards China, but surely the most important thing today is that this House should speak with one voice in condemning this sham trial and demanding the immediate release of Jimmy Lai, and I thank the Foreign Secretary for doing that. I am told that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, of which I am a member, is cited no fewer than 500 times in the judgment on Jimmy Lai. It has had no contact from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, despite having initiated a correspondence. When the Foreign Secretary returns to the Department, can she investigate that and ensure that it is given the proper level of engagement that it requires and deserves?
I will certainly do so. I will follow that up, and get back to the right hon. Member. I agree with him that it is immensely important that we speak with one powerful voice, with all of us calling for the release of Jimmy Lai.
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree that our recognition of a Palestinian state earlier this year is crucial to ensuring that Palestinians can rebuild fully. As my hon. Friend said, it is not simply the stopping of violence that counts; it is all the next steps. Efforts must be led by Palestinians across the whole of society. In particular, women need to be actively included throughout reconstruction. They need to be guiding it throughout and not simply be an afterthought.
This window of time could not be more important. Recent history should remind us that what is meant to be temporary can often become entrenched. Israel’s occupation of the west bank has lasted 50 years.
I commend the hon. Lady, who is making a very important contribution. This is looking to the medium and long term; but, candidly, if there is to be any civic infrastructure in Gaza, the seeds of that must come from the west bank, and in the west bank it is under threat day and daily. Therefore, although she is right to say that the international focus has to be on Gaza, we cannot ignore the fact that Palestinians in the west bank are undergoing a horrific programme of settler oppression, settler violence and settler expansion, which threatens both Gaza and the west bank.
Lizzi Collinge
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Although the international focus has been on Gaza, horrific acts still continue in the west bank and the people there are living in fear of settler violence. That is why I very much welcomed sanctions on some settler organisations, although I think we could have gone further. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. For Palestine to live freely, we have to talk about the whole of Palestine. It cannot be divided; it cannot be carved up piecemeal, and the illegal occupations absolutely must stop now.
Too many Palestinians fear that the destruction, displacement and suffering that they have endured will become permanent. We cannot let that happen. So much has been lost and so many lives have been destroyed, but those who survive need urgent aid and the chance to rebuild. Our responsibility is to ensure that the people of Gaza emerge from this horror with the tools, support and autonomy to shape their own future.
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI think it is slightly more subtle than that. The point is that if Lord Mandelson had appeared before the Committee, he would have faced a range of questions that would have highlighted issues that needed to be considered properly and that could not, in the rush to appoint him, be overlooked in the way they seem to have been. It is about putting a brake on it. We would not, as a Committee, have the power to say that the Government cannot appoint someone, but we would shed light on the nature of the appointment and, through our questions, be able to examine whether or not it was the wisest thing to do.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that if we are to salvage anything positive from this whole sorry episode, it must be that in the future, Parliament, through the Select Committees, has a role in this process? Does not her experience illustrate that the question of who is in charge of that must remain with the Select Committee and not with the Executive?
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, for the update on that situation. I will not comment on the individual case, but when I was making the IHL assessment on a clear risk, which was previously referred to, one of the areas that I looked at closely and where I did believe there was a clear risk was the treatment of prisoners. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House about those humanitarian concerns.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the concerns expressed by his noble Friend Lord Hain about the possibility of contracts under the Army Collective Trading Service being awarded to Elbit Systems UK, whose parent company Elbit Systems Ltd markets its weapons as being “battle tested” in Gaza and on the west bank? Lord Hain wrote to the Defence Secretary to say:
“Awarding this contract worth an estimated £1.9 billion to £2.5 billion would entrench Elbit Systems at the core of the UK’s defence infrastructure for a full 15-year period”
and that to proceed with the contract would
“erode confidence in the integrity of our procurement system”.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Lord Hain’s comments should be given the fullest possible consideration and that, if they are shown to be of substance, his right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary should not be awarding contracts to a company like that?
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that this is an open procurement. No decisions have been made, and no decisions will be made until 2026. The whole House will have heard what he said.
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Falconer
My right hon. Friend raises incredibly important points about journalists and I am happy to take up the case in question. Not just journalists but a whole set of people are afforded special protections under international law, including medical professionals and aid workers, many of whom we have seen involved in terrible incidents in Gaza. We have been pressing for accountability and justice on those questions; I think in particular of the three British nationals killed in the World Central Kitchen incident more than a year ago, for whom we are still waiting for justice.
Does the Minister accept that, where prima facie evidence of genocide exists, awaiting for the determination to be made formally by a court is not sufficient for us to meet the duty to prevent under the genocide convention?
Mr Falconer
In this case, the International Court of Justice is clearly the correct authority. It has issued a set of provisional measures, which we support.
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons Chamber