Jagtar Singh Johal
Debate between Douglas McAllister and Patricia Ferguson(5 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas McAllister
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I place on record my thanks to her and, as she validly says, the British Sikh community across the United Kingdom, Sikh Federation UK and the all-party parliamentary group on British Sikhs. Without that collective support, we would not have secured what we have today, which is his release on bail, but the fight continues.
Jagtar, of course, is from my West Dunbartonshire constituency. His ordeal is a matter of huge concern to many of my constituents, who have urged me to continue pressing Jagtar’s case in this place. I am grateful for the continued efforts of campaigners in my constituency and beyond to keep me updated on developments. Although I have never spoken to Jagtar, I hope one day to meet him as a free man, shake his hand and have that long-awaited conversation.
Jagtar travelled to India in 2017, shortly after his wedding. What should have been one of the happiest periods of his life turned into nine years of unimaginable suffering. While shopping with his wife in Punjab on his honeymoon, he was abducted from the street by hooded men who were later identified as police officers. He was held incommunicado for 10 days. During that period, he was subjected to electric shocks, sleep deprivation, stress positions and threats against his life. It is now known that a forced confession was extracted from Jagtar through torture. Following that, he was sent to prison, where he remained arbitrarily detained for almost nine years. The highly political accusations against Jagtar are not supported by any material evidence—no bank records, no email trail, no CCTV or anything of that kind. In fact, the case against him is based on that forced confession, obtained under days of torture.
These deeply concerning events are not simply claims made by campaigners or family members. They have repeatedly been the subject of international concern and scrutiny. In May 2022, the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention concluded that Jagtar was being detained arbitrarily and called for his release. In April this year, 10 UN special rapporteurs and independent experts issued an even stronger statement. They found that there was “no rationale” for Jagtar’s continued detention and stated:
“Eight and a half years of arbitrary detention without a clear path to trial is not justice, it is unlawful suffering.”
They went on to say that the prolonged uncertainty surrounding his case amounted to a form of psychological torture. These are exceptionally serious findings from the UN.
The same experts raised concerns regarding the apparent duplication of charges, the presumption of innocence, the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation and the continued reliance on evidence allegedly obtained through torture. They stated:
“International law is unequivocal: torture includes severe mental suffering caused by prolonged uncertainty while awaiting trial…It also prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture in proceedings and requires prompt, transparent and fair trials”.
Those principles should guide every justice system. They should also guide our response when those principles appear to have been breached in the case of a British citizen, as has happened with Mr Johal.
There have been hundreds of hearings over the course of these proceedings, yet judges recently observed in a written order that the trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon, which is incredibly worrying. There was a significant development in March 2025 when a court in Moga acquitted Jagtar of all charges. Prosecutors had spent seven years pursuing the prosecution of that case and ultimately failed to present credible evidence. Yet despite that acquittal, Jagtar remained imprisoned because he continued to face eight other cases, which are essentially duplicates. They all have similar underlying allegations, the same disputed confession and the same questionable evidence. That is backed up by UN experts, who have raised concerns about the similarity of these charges, as well as issues around double jeopardy, the presumption of innocence and the use of evidence allegedly obtained through torture.
This month, there has finally been progress. Following a bail order granted on 18 September, Jagtar was released from Tihar jail on 1 October—after almost nine years in custody. This is very welcome news, and I know it has brought enormous relief to his family, friends and supporters.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
As his constituency neighbour, I praise my hon. Friend’s steadfast campaigning on this issue, which began before he was elected to this place. Does he share my concern that the fact it took another court to demand that Jagtar be released on the bail that had already been granted some days before shows how intransigent the Indian authorities are in this case? That gives us all pause for thought. I hope that the improving economic relationship this country now has with India can be part of the leverage that will be used to make the Indian Government do the right thing at last.
Douglas McAllister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will touch on towards the conclusion of my speech. I agree entirely with her comments, and would like to take this opportunity to thank her not only for her intervention but for the support she has shown me over the last two years in our joint fight for justice for my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal.
Jagtar remains subject to strict bail conditions. He remains on trial in eight outstanding cases. He remains under the threat of serious criminal charges and potentially the death penalty if convicted. He is unable to return home to Scotland. While his release represents an important step forward, it does not bring this case to an end.
This debate is not intended to undermine the relationship between the United Kingdom and India. I am very aware that India is a hugely important partner to us and a valued friend. Nor do I underestimate the complexities involved in consular cases overseas. I recognise that Ministers and officials have intervened on this case over the years and that representations have been made at various levels. Indeed, a number of previous Foreign Secretaries have raised Jagtar’s case with their Indian counterparts.
Most recently, the current Foreign Secretary spoke to India’s External Affairs Minister, Minister Jaishankar, last month and stressed that Jagtar’s case had been a concern for a long time. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for raising this, but the response from Minister Jaishankar was not good enough. As he has done in the past, he insisted that he cannot interfere with the courts, but after almost nine years, concern alone cannot be the measure of success. Raising Jagtar’s case at any opportunity is not good enough, and his family saw little evidence of progress coming from these supposed discussions. The measure of success must be whether Jagtar is finally able to return home.
In September 2023, a Government Minister argued that publicly calling for Jagtar’s release was not in his best interests. The Government therefore chose not to call for his release at that stage. Now, the circumstances have changed. The opportunity before us has changed, and the Government’s approach must change, too.
I was pleased to see the appointment of a UK envoy for complex consular detentions, who is responsible for supporting British nationals detained overseas in complex cases. I know that he has met Jagtar’s brother Gurpreet, whose commitment throughout this campaign has been extraordinary. Since the very start, he has spoken up for his brother with determination, dignity and resilience. I thank Gurpreet for being Jagtar’s biggest supporter and advocate, and for relentlessly fighting for his release. I also wish to thank the team at Reprieve, who fight for people facing torture, unlawful detention and the death penalty—
Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and Craniocervical Instability
Debate between Douglas McAllister and Patricia Ferguson(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Like others, I was not aware of this condition until I was contacted by my constituent Jo, who has bravely shared her story widely. I am grateful that she has done that. However, one of the things that Jo wanted to have raised today is that a recent report by Edinburgh University indicated that patients in Scotland can wait up to 20 years for diagnosis, and that when they are diagnosed—if they are diagnosed—they then, as my hon. Friend has said, face a very difficult journey in trying to find care, help and medical treatment. They often have to come south of the border for that treatment and pay for it privately. I echo my hon. Friend’s point about finding a pathway for people with these conditions, and I hope that today’s debate leads to one.
Sale of Fireworks
Debate between Douglas McAllister and Patricia Ferguson(9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster 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
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the way in which he laid out the debate, and the petitioners for taking the time to give us their views.
As we have heard, fireworks can be a source of entertainment and play a very important role in cultural celebrations, but, sadly, for many people and animals they are a source of anxiety, distress and danger. Product safety and the sale of fireworks are consumer safety issues and so reserved to Westminster. Current regulations prohibit the sale of fireworks to the public except during certain periods of the year: Chinese new year, Diwali, bonfire night and new year. However, the easing of restrictions, while intended to allow the marking of significant cultural celebrations, creates extended periods when private backyard or back-garden displays can occur sporadically with no prior warning.
The extended easing of restrictions over bonfire night has been highlighted by veterans charities as a particular point of concern. The bright flashes of light, loud bangs and smell of smoke lingering in the air can trigger PTSD in veterans. Moreover, that period of sale coincides with the period during which we remember those who have fallen in war and compounds the distress already associated with that time.
The unpredictability of backyard displays also places an unnecessary burden on vulnerable groups in our society and on pet owners, preventing them from planning ahead and putting precautions and coping strategies in place to limit the distress. In Scotland, when and where fireworks can be discharged is a devolved issue. As we have heard, some measures have been introduced to further restrict their use.
In response to the antisocial behaviour associated with fireworks, the Scottish Government’s Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles (Scotland) Act 2022 provides local authorities with the power to designate firework control zones. In Glasgow, three such zones were implemented last year between 1 November and 10 November, although, frustratingly, the bid for a zone in my constituency was rejected by Glasgow city council. Residents living within those zones have reported a calmer environment, a quieter evening and a better experience, but Glasgow as a whole still recorded the highest number of firework-related calls to the police in Scotland—in fact, double the second-highest reported number, which was in Edinburgh. Sound does not observe boundaries and does not understand the limitations of zones, and residents living in control zones noted that firework-related noise continued to be an issue, so there is a question of how to police such areas. To tackle noise and antisocial behaviour effectively, the implementation of a city-wide control zone would have made more sense, but the current legislation does not allow that, which seems to me a real problem.
The Scottish Government’s 2022 Act also legislated for the establishment and implementation of a new licensing scheme, which would require members of the public to obtain a licence before being allowed to purchase, possess or use fireworks. However, at the end of last year the First Minister announced that the implementation of the scheme would be paused due to its complexity, which I understand, and the cost of introducing it.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, on 5 November last year we experienced not only horrific effects on animals but unacceptable criminal conduct and large-scale chaos. Police riot vans were deployed after a 40-strong mob pelted people, local businesses and cars with explosives, and emergency services were attacked at several locations. Bonfire night is just an excuse for antisocial behaviour now, frankly, as are the weeks before and after. Does my hon. Friend agree that the SNP Scottish Government need to get a grip? Their failure to deliver the promised legislative protections has left communities such as West Dunbartonshire exposed.
Patricia Ferguson
I thank my hon. Friend. I was just saying that as well as its complexity, which I understand, another reason for not introducing licensing in the way that the Scottish Government originally wanted to was the cost, which seems particularly ironic given that they have had a record devolution settlement for the second year running. I understand his point, and his constituency neighbours mine. In previous years—fortunately not for some time now—we had instances in my constituency of thugs, frankly, using scaffolding poles to fire fireworks at the police, who ended up having to bring in the riot squad to deal with it. That kind of behaviour cannot be allowed, and any action that is taken must show understanding that not everyone is a good actor.
Apart from anything else, I do not actually think the Scottish Government’s licensing scheme would work. We need measures that are easily understood and easily enforceable. As we have heard, silent or much quieter fireworks and organised displays seem to be the way forward. If we do not listen to what people are telling us, we will continue to perpetuate an environment that detrimentally affects animal welfare and the welfare of vulnerable groups in our society.
This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I hope that we will all resolve, and the Minister will agree, that we should not be back here having it again next year.
Glasgow Safer Drug Consumption Facility
Debate between Douglas McAllister and Patricia Ferguson
Patricia Ferguson
I hope the hon. Lady does not mind if I call her my hon. Friend. I thank her for her question. I think it fair to say that the issues we looked at challenged us all. Many of us were considering issues that we had never reflected upon before, so it was a challenge, and I perfectly understand that we will have disagreements about how to go forward. The thing about inhalation that was highlighted to us is that for many people, inhalation is safer than injecting, which has all sorts of risks attached—infected wounds and blood-borne viruses, for example. Inhalation does not have those problems, and is becoming increasingly popular as a method of using drugs, so it seemed to the Committee that we could encourage its consideration. We are not suggesting that there should be further injection spaces at this time—we think it is important to see what the evaluation says, and that any decisions should be based on that particular finding—but we are aware that other places in Scotland are looking at the Thistle with interest, and may well make those applications, although that is not the gist of the report.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Scotland has the worst drugs death figures of any nation in Europe, and they have increased again, with 607 suspected drug deaths in the first half of this year. Six years ago, the SNP Scottish Government declared a “drug death emergency”—just another example of soundbite announcements with no actual delivery. They have had two decades to tackle this issue, but the truth is that they have failed. None of them is here tonight. Does my hon. Friend agree that the independent evaluation panel will determine the Thistle’s efficacy and, ultimately, its future beyond the three-year pilot, and that that gold-standard service is not an either/or but must work in tandem with a range of other recovery services?
Patricia Ferguson
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, as the impartial Chair of the Committee, for not criticising or commenting on the failings or otherwise of the SNP, whose Members are not, as he points out, here this evening. He is absolutely right that this is not an either/or. It is important that the provision is part of a range of options offered. If any of those options can help to reduce the drug death numbers in Scotland, they must be considered seriously, and that is what we suggest.