Ukraine: Special Tribunal

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) for securing this debate on an issue of vital importance, not only to achieving natural justice for the people of Ukraine, but to ensuring that crimes of aggression, such as those committed by Vladimir Putin and his regime, are not without consequences. Regardless of what we think of any sort of international order or universal values, that sort of barbarism is not to be tolerated. I am glad to say that I think that feeling is shared by Members from across the House, by people across the islands of the north Atlantic, and certainly by my colleagues in the Scottish National party. Our members unanimously passed a resolution at our conference last year calling for exactly that sort of action to be taken against this aggressor, who has caused so much pain and suffering to people with whom he has claimed fraternity.

We have heard all too often, including this morning, that there is one obvious stumbling block to establishing a tribunal: the lack of a suitable venue. To be blunt, with the United Nations and even the International Criminal Court unlikely to accept the case for what some would call crushingly cynical political reasons, it would be a test of judicial dexterity to ensure accountability.

I was glad to hear the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Henley (John Howell), mention the Council of Europe as a venue. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned the requirement for more dexterity in the legal process. I am mindful of the agreement between the UK and the former Libyan regime, which allowed a sitting of the High Court of Justiciary in the Netherlands. It had special jurisdiction over other territories; that was based on Security Council resolution 1192. That agreement allowed what was then the highest court of Scotland to sit in another country to bring about the conviction of the Libyan bomber. The difficulty of going through the UN in this case is that the Russian Federation would veto that.

It is important and appropriate to acknowledge the work of the investigators on the ground in recording the crimes perpetrated by the Russian Federation, whether they are domestic or international law-and-order units or ordinary Ukrainian people. Their ability to carry out such an exacting job in the face of demonstrable and abject horror needs to be commended. Any international tribunal will rely on their work, and they know that. I imagine that, in any circumstances, that is what keeps them going.

Those of us who grew up with those who remembered the horrors of the second world war did not think we would ever be in such a position again. I grew up with a father who was a first-hand witness to one of the largest Nazi atrocities imposed on a civilian population during the second world war, namely the Clydebank blitz. The idea that, in an age of smart munitions, civilians would continue to be targeted so indiscriminately is unfathomable, yet there is a litany of reports, often accompanied by heartbreaking images, of targeting of residential areas of no military value. It could be no clearer that these atrocities are happening nearly daily. There can be no question but that my party and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to joining the core group set up to further investigate avenues. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that point, and any other commitments that the Government can give. It is important that we challenge ourselves.

I appreciate the possibility of creating a precedent for the further investigation of possible war crimes committed by other countries, even the UK. Many would note that that would probably include places such as Iraq. I marched against that conflict for many reasons, and the precedent it set was clear to me at the time. No one in this place should shy away from ensuring that justice is done, whenever and wherever. I hope that when colleagues sum up, they will echo my sentiments.

There are those who say that in laying the foundations for such a tribunal, we close off the potential for a negotiated settlement in Ukraine, because Putin will not agree to terms that see him come before this tribunal. I understand that rationale, but I simply cannot see any alternative in the face of such evildoing. The idea has not stopped him planning to travel abroad, whether to occupied Mariupol or even South Africa. After the failure to take Kyiv within 72 hours, I do not think he was in any doubt that there would be no return to the status quo ante. Either Putin will be removed by an internal opponent, of which there are increasing numbers, or he will face justice for his crimes in Ukraine. I hope he faces justice.

I finish by reiterating my party’s unwavering support for the establishment of an international tribunal that will ensure accountability for the litany of crimes committed by the Russian Federation in Ukraine. I hope to see not only the liberation of all regions of Ukraine under occupation, but justice for those who have suffered.

Sudan

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

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

The proposition that war and conflict do not happen during high days and holy days is a ridiculous one. Therefore, because of woefully inadequate intelligence on the ground it seems—maybe the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that the British ambassador to Sudan decided to go on holiday. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true, and if so, who was in charge on the ground?

[Mr Mitchell]

The ambassador is entitled to return to the UK either on diplomatic business or, indeed, on leave if that is appropriate. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the second most senior person in the embassy in Khartoum—the development director—was in post when the disaster struck.

Turkey and Syria Earthquakes

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

Let me also thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. Let me also join the House in expressing condolences and sympathy, on behalf of those on the SNP Benches, to the peoples of Turkey and Syria, who have suffered the most powerful earthquakes in the region for over 80 years, releasing the catastrophes we see now compounding the suffering of the peoples of the region.

With an estimated 500,000 people of Turkish origin living across the UK and an estimated 28,000 Syrian nationals, I think we can all agree on how personal much of this loss is to many of our constituents. Let me welcome the Department’s decision to send further support to Turkey, and I commend the Department for co-ordinating with the UN on support for those in Syria. That said, it is always important that the international community continues to listen to those on the ground, including the UN, the Red Crescent and, of course, the White Helmets in the coming days and weeks, so that we can deliver the best relief and assistance possible. I am sure that the Minister and the Department are doing just that.

Let me ask three specific questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), in a written parliamentary question, has already asked the International Development Minister whether the Department plans to provide additional funding to the World Food Programme to help tackle immediate humanitarian needs in both Turkey and Syria. The Minister responded:

“The UK currently has no plans to provide additional funding to the World Food Programme.”

That question was asked because the World Food Programme says it requires $46 million over the next three to four months to address the immediate needs. Will the Minister reconsider the decision not to pledge to the World Food Programme and make a substantial donation?

In addition, the European Commission has announced that it will organise a donor conference for Syria and Turkey to mobilise funding, to be held in March. Will the Minister provide clarity on the Government’s attendance, as they are eligible to attend? Will his Government pledge generously and early to that campaign? Finally, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in the north-east have pledged to facilitate the delivery of aid. It has been reported that the United States will fly aid to Qamishli, a city controlled by the SDF, where it will be transported by land to the affected region. Will the Minister outline whether UK aid will be flown in through that route as well?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the Scottish National party spokesman for his comments about the work of British service and search and rescue personnel, and of others in my Department, given their hard work throughout many nights and days when this terrible event took place. He asked three questions. We are very significant funders of the World Food Programme. On whether we decide to use that route to provide additional help in Syria and Turkey, we will have to wait and see, but for the moment we have responded and made sure that UK aid gets through to those who need it at this point in the crisis.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether funding will be considered for the Turkey-Syria fundraising conference. We will look at that at the time, but I assure him and the House that we have been right up there in the lead on making sure that critical needs are met. On the third and final question he asked, we will make sure, in every way we can, that aid gets through to people in north-east Syria. We will use whatever means are available to us. As I hope he has seen from what has happened already, Britain has not been shy in pressing these points to make sure that the aid gets through.

Raid of BBC Offices in India

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

As I have highlighted, freedom of religion or belief is vital for this Government. It is a key principle, as is freedom of media. The hon. Gentleman will know that we had a fantastic conference here in the UK last summer to promote freedom of religion or belief. We condemn any instances of discrimination because of religion and will continue to do so across the world. We have those conversations with the Indian Government, and we are able to do so because of the depth and breadth of the relationship.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this urgent question. With these raids we see an example of the increasing politicisation of the Indian justice system, along with a hostile attitude towards an independent media. Does the Minister agree that that politicisation and mediatisation of the Indian republic’s judicial system is a matter of real concern for British citizens who might find themselves subject to it—for example, my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal?

Jagtar Singh Johal

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

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

Let me begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to proceed today. I noticed, while going over my notes in preparation, that it is almost a year since I first submitted the request, yet the Committee has indulged my requests to delay owing to the changing circumstances of the case. I think it was more in hope than expectation that my friend, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), offered me the slot last week, and I am delighted to see them in their place today, as well as other members of the Backbench Business Committee.

I do not intend to spend much time today going over the specifics of the case. These are a matter for the public record, following: the Adjournment debate that I was granted in November 2018; the Westminster Hall debate of June 2021; and, indeed, the urgent question heard by the House in September last year. Indeed, in the five years since Jagtar’s arrest, I have brought up his case on the Floor of the House on more than 30 separate occasions. This, along with the excellent work of my colleagues from other political parties across the House who have continued to raise my constituent’s case in parliamentary questions—

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I have arranged meetings with Foreign Secretaries, Ministers and Prime Ministers, but my efforts have been as nothing compared with the incredible assiduous work of my friend, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes). His pursuit of freedom on behalf of Jagtar and his family is admirable and I am determined to offer any support that I can as he continues to fight this case.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman has been a stout defender of Jagtar’s rights, and I am grateful for his continued support and for that of some of his colleagues.

As I was saying, the engagement across parties in debates and in meetings with Ministers shows the strength and durability of the feeling in this place to address what is becoming one of the most—at least I would say—prominent injustices in modern UK foreign policy. That is, essentially, the purpose of this debate. Through the speeches and interventions made in the House today, I want the Government to see: that Members across this House, across parties, and across the nations of these islands, have no intention of forgetting Jagtar Singh Johal; that the choice that they made not to deem his continued detention an arbitrary one until recently to not be without consequence; and that even five years on, we will be here, and for another five years if that is indeed necessary. Once again, we ask them, through the Minister, to call for his immediate release.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on all the work that he has done on behalf of his constituent, and, indeed, his constituents. Plenty of constituents in Glasgow North are regularly in contact with me about this issue—not just people who worship at the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Otago Street, but members of the Amnesty groups and the wider community. They understand that Jagtar has been arbitrarily detained. The United Nations understands that that is what has happened to him. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must recognise that and that they have to call for fair due process and, ultimately, for Jagtar’s release?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. We are at the point now where that needs to be vocalised on the Floor of the House. It is one thing to say it in private, but it does need to be vocalised by the Minister.

The United Kingdom Government are, of course, not the only relevant party: the Government of the Republic of India, their judiciary and their police forces are the ones who continue to hold my constituent in a fashion that is consistent with arbitrary detention—

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

I wish to add to the contributions that have been made about my hon. Friend’s endeavour in relation to standing up for his constituent. On the point that he just made, we know that, in August 2022, there were reports that MI5 and MI6 operatives supplied information that has led to the torture of a British citizen in India. That is, of course, a breach of his human rights and, to my mind, it is an act of treachery on behalf of the UK Government. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

That matter is about to go before the courts, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me say that that type of approach by previous UK Governments is not unknown. I hope that the courts will recognise that we need further information on the involvement of the British Government in the arbitrary detention of my constituent and his possible torture.

As I said, the UK Government are not the only relevant party. The Government of the Republic of India, their judiciary and their police forces are the ones who continue to hold my constituent in a fashion that is consistent with arbitrary detention. I would like them to watch this debate and recognise that this has not escaped international attention and nor will it do so.

Last May, when the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention submitted a report on the case, it could not have been clearer. It said:

“Mr Johal’s arrest and detention are arbitrary…as there is a lack of legal basis or justification, and amount to unlawful abduction, incommunicado detention and unreasonable pretrial detention.”

It continues that

“none of the domestic or international law requirements was complied with during Mr Johal’s arrest. Mr Johal was bound, hooded and taken by unidentified police officers. During that time, Mr Johal was never informed that he was being arrested, nor was a family member with him. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

We subsequently heard last year, following the excellent work of the charity Reprieve, that this arrest was almost certainly the result of intelligence shared by the British Government. There is, of course, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), an ongoing legal case. I hope we will one day be able to establish the circumstances that set this terrible personal tragedy into motion, although it would save the family the stress of the court process if the UK Government were to be up-front about their role in the case as soon as possible—but I am afraid I do not think that will happen.

We are here one week before 26 January, when India celebrates Republic Day and marks the 73rd anniversary of the constitution’s coming into force, effectively heralding the culmination of a long and often bloody struggle to create the modern Indian state out of the unjust and rapacious reality of British colonial rule. Standing in this Chamber, within this Palace constructed partially with the proceeds of the wealth extracted from India during the colonial period, every one of us must be mindful of so much when addressing the actions of the Indian Government, as I hope I have always been when referring to this case.

The Republic of India is a great state—indeed, it is more than that; it is a great civilisation. During my Adjournment debate in November 2018, I ended with an appeal that,

“transparency, due process and the rule of law”—[Official Report, 27 November 2018; Vol. 650, c. 222.]

be upheld in this case. The course of time has certainly not altered those sentiments, but it allows us to reflect on whether they have been upheld. I am afraid that not only do I, the majority of hon. Members present, the Johal family and countless legal experts hold the view that transparency, due process and the rule of law have not been upheld in Jagtar’s case, but so does the United Nations.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on once more securing a debate on behalf of his constituent Jagtar Singh Johal. This is a matter I have raised on numerous occasions on behalf of many concerned Slough constituents. Does he agree that, since the UN working group on arbitrary detention issued an opinion finding that Jagtar “was subjected to torture” and that his detention was based on “discriminatory grounds”, it is incumbent on the Foreign Office to issue Jagtar’s family and legal team with all the consular support and advice required in their fight to get him released and see justice delivered?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is another doughty campaigner for my constituent and works closely with me. I do not disagree, but I must put on record that, in difficult times, the consular teams have stepped up to the plate in many ways and have worked tirelessly to assist the family. The difficulty is political leadership.

[Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. I am aware, as hon. Members across the House will be, of the good work he is doing in championing Jagtar’s family. Does he agree that this is only the latest example of a growing trend of UK Government incompetence and inaction when faced with British nationals detained abroad, and that it is vital that we ensure that previous blunders are not repeated in the case of Jagtar Singh Johal?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

There has been a litany of personal disasters when it comes to consular support, but I say again that that is not the staff, but the lack of political leadership, the impact of change since 2016 due to Brexit, the number of staff members taken away from different desks covering different countries and the amount of churn going through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That has been profoundly difficult, and it has dire consequences for all our constituents on the ground.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his determined effort on behalf of his constituent. Does he think there is anything to be learned from the result of the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case and how that transpired? What learnings are there from that case in terms of both campaigning and how that was worked through with the Foreign Office and how that might secure Jagtar’s release?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The hon. Gentleman raises a range of issues, but I am afraid that the debate will not give me long enough today to open up Pandora’s box on the differences between my constituent and others, although some differences are self-evident. I put it on record that the support from the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe campaign for my constituent and his family has been 100% solid. On the differences between dealing with theocracies and what are supposed to be close allies, we have seen clear differences between the two cases come out politically over the past couple of years.

In the week before Republic Day, I made a plea to the Indian Government, and the judiciary, which is quite correctly independent, to reflect on the preamble to the great foundational document of the Republic of India that they will celebrate next week. Let us recall the words:

“JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and opportunity;”

and then of course:

“FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the Unity and integrity of the Nation.”

Those are fine words, befitting a great global state, which, if trends continue, stands to become a great global leader of the 21st century, but that will require not only economic might and demographic advantage but translating great sentiments into great actions: fair and open institutions that have the trust of the people.

This week we saw Jagtar’s case again adjourned until March due to witnesses not being presented, just as it was in November, and those more well-versed than me in Indian legal matters think it could continue to be adjourned at eight-week intervals for some time. If the prosecution cannot produce witnesses, they are not only wasting everyone’s time, but wasting the best part of my constituent’s life.

Goodness knows we still have our problems with institutions on these islands, but that should never stop anyone or any political state striving to be better. In that spirit of self-reflection, I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by asking the Minister to think about changing their strategy. Neither the family or I doubt the commitment of the Government to raise this often and at the highest levels; yet here we are, five years on, having seen very little movement in the case. Indeed, only one of the nine cases involving Jagtar has advanced in any meaningful way. The current approach simply is not working.

When the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), conceded in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition that it was the Government’s view that Jagtar had been arbitrarily detained, the family and all the many people interested in Jagtar’s welfare naturally expected that that would be followed by action from the British Government. We know that the Government have called for the release of UK citizens arbitrarily detained abroad: will they now do so for Jagtar?

I hope by the time we hear from the Minister—maybe rather quicker than we hoped—we will have an answer to this straightforward question and others that will be brought forth by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. With miscarriages of justice such as this, it is often some time before victims and families see action; when we are seeing one continuing to take place before our eyes, then we must redouble our efforts to stop it. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Government can do their bit too.

That is the spirit of this debate. I look forward to hearing the voices of those who contribute, and they have the gratitude of the Johal family. I hope their voices will echo not just across the road to King Charles Street, but across the globe to India. We will not give up on Jagtar. It is time to set him free.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We clearly have a bit of a disagreement. The Indian courts, the NIA and the police had five years to bring cases against my constituent for the charges against him, yet they have progressed only one of those, and even then, it was using evidence that was likely—whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with it or not—obtained using torture. Does he think it is time they actually brought a case to court and got on with it?

[Bob Blackman]

Justice delayed is justice denied. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this case should proceed in court as fast as possible. We have to remember that in India, the judiciary is impartial and is based on the UK model. We should also be clear that keeping Jagtar in prison for this length of time without bringing charges and without proper process, so that he can either answer those charges or, indeed, be found guilty of them, is unfair and unjust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I recognise what the hon. Lady says. One of the questions I have for the Minister is: can he confirm that Mr Singh has been given access to legal representation at all times?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

This is vital, because if he has been denied legal representation, that is a denial of his human rights. Equally, has the high commission maintained contact with not only Mr Singh but the Indian authorities, to establish exactly what is going on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I am posing questions for the Minister to answer because I genuinely want to hear what the view of the British Government is on these points. The key here is the actions of our high commission in representing not only the hon. Gentleman’s constituent but, importantly, a UK national.

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that this might be the case. We know that India—and we will be talking about Republic Day next week—faces a number of terrorist atrocities and terrorist attacks. We therefore have to be very careful when we are looking at what the Indian Government, the Indian police and their crime agencies are doing to combat that terrorism.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

In relation to the banned organisation of which the hon. Gentleman said my constituent was a member, he must remember that that so-called banned organisation was not banned until 2018, and my constituent was arrested in 2017. Rather than throwing accusations and aspersions without evidence, which would not stand in a court of law, does he agree that he should use his contacts in the Indian Government to ask them to bring forward witnesses and bring the case to court?

[Bob Blackman]

It appears that the hon. Gentleman now accepts the fact that Mr Singh is a member of a banned organisation.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

No, I did not say that.

[Bob Blackman]

Well, it seemed me that that is exactly what he was alluding to. The fact is that under Indian law, Mr Singh has the right to bring his case to the courts. The accusations of torture—which, of course, would be illegal under international law—should be listened to in the Indian courts, so he should bring that case to the Indian courts through his lawyers and legal representatives. That is vital.

Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that consular officers from the high commission have been granted access to Mr Singh more than 60 times during the duration of his arrest and detention? That means we are ensuring that the high commission is doing its job and that proper access and proper assistance is provided to our citizen, to ensure that we will eventually get to a conclusion of this case, however long it takes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for calling this debate, and I am grateful for the contributions of other Members, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire for his tireless energy on behalf of his constituent. He paid tribute to the consular support received by Mr Johal and I agree with that sentiment. We are always terrifically proud of the consular staff in the FCDO. They have been particularly active in this case and we are grateful for their continued efforts.

It may be useful to confirm straight up that Mr Johal has had access to a lawyer since his arrest, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. On consular support, since his arrest in 2017, more than 50 such consular visits or calls have taken place, led by the relevant consular regional operations manager. We appreciate their work and I am pleased to report that Mr Johal received one of those consular visits this morning.

Colleagues will understand that Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is the Minister for India, but his being in the other place it is my pleasure to respond on his behalf. Let me begin by saying that this matter rightly continues to cause great concern across the House and the Sikh community. I recognise how incredibly difficult the past five years have been for Mr Johal, his family and his friends.

We want a resolution to this protracted and complex case. Let me assure Members that we are doing what we can at the highest levels to support Mr Johal and his family, and we will continue to do so. The Foreign Secretary did that with his counterpart Dr Jaishankar during his visit to India last October. During visits to India earlier in 2022, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), and the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), also raised this case with Prime Minister Modi and Dr Jaishankar.

As I said, the Minister of State Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon continues to lead efforts on this case. He is in regular contact with counterparts across the Indian Government. He most recently raised Mr Johal’s case with the Indian high commissioner to the UK on 13 December. Just this week, the Foreign Office’s most senior official, the permanent under-secretary Sir Philip Barton, raised this matter with his Indian counterpart. More broadly, a working group of UK and Indian officials is discussing measures to improve support to all British nationals detained in India. We are in regular contact with Mr Johal’s family to offer our support and updates on our engagement with the Indian authorities.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

On engagement with the family, can the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that his Government accept that my constituent was arbitrarily detained?

[Leo Docherty]

I will come to that in a moment. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has issued its opinion about Mr Johal’s case. We take it very seriously. We are focused right now on giving him the welfare support that he needs and we will continue to raise our concerns about his case directly with the Government of India.

The former Foreign Secretary met the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire and Mr Johal’s brother last June to discuss the matter. The current Foreign Secretary is due to meet the hon. Member and Mr Johal’s brother later this month. Our consular staff are in weekly contact with Mr Johal’s family to support them as best we can through this difficult time.

Mr Johal has made allegations of torture and mistreatment during his detention. We take such allegations very seriously. Let me be clear: torture, and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment are prohibited under international law. We have consistently raised concerns directly with the Indian authorities at the highest levels. That includes requests for an effective, impartial investigation into the allegations, for Mr Johal to have access to an independent medical examination, and for his right to a fair trial to be upheld. He is facing multiple charges; the trials have started for some of those. Our consular staff will continue to monitor the developments closely throughout the process.

Mr Johal has been accused of offences for which the maximum sentence is the death penalty. The UK is strongly opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. I therefore appreciate how deeply distressing the situation must be for Mr Johal and his family. Our consular staff in India visit him regularly to offer support, and did so most recently this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being in the Chair in this important debate. I thank Members on all sides of the House who have contributed not just in the debate but in the last five years in support of my constituent. What I hope to see, and I do not think I have heard it yet from the Minister, is a change in strategy to be more frank and robust when raising Jagtar’s case, because the current, I have to say, softly, softly approach is not working. When I first raised the case in 2017—it seems a lifetime ago in politics, especially in this House—I was assured from the Dispatch Box that the Minister just stood at that the UK Government would take “extreme action” in the case of a UK citizen’s being tortured. The time for action has now passed, after a lengthy period.

I am disappointed that accusations and aspersions about my constituent have yet again been made in the House. I note that the Indian Prime Minister was a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a paramilitary Hindu nationalist volunteer organisation in India that was banned three times in the Indian republic, but I do not see anybody taking him off the streets hooded or arbitrarily detaining him or half of his Cabinet, given their membership of that organisation. I hope that in our meeting with the Foreign Secretary next week, what could not be spoken about in the Chamber today may at least be said privately.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Mahsa Amini

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

Yes; my hon. Friend makes a good point. Iran’s human rights record has long been of serious concern to the UK, and the FCDO has designated it as one of its human rights priority countries. The continued use of the death penalty, the weak rule of law and the restrictions on freedom of expression, religion and belief are deeply worrying.

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

I feel sure that the entire House will thank the Minister for her words regarding the brave actions of the indomitable women of Iran, and I was glad to be at the SNP conference at the weekend, where members passed a motion by acclaim condemning the death of Mahsa Amini. Can I ask the Minister whether the Government are therefore planning to make it UK policy to condemn all countries across the middle east that use the pretence of morality to police the bodies of women and compel them to wear certain coverings?

[Gillian Keegan]

We continue to work with many, including our international partners, on many countries where we see human rights violations, but we do not comment on operational matters or ongoing discussions.

Jagtar Singh Johal

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government’s actions in the case of Jagtar Singh Johal.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Rehman Chishti)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for asking the urgent question, and I pay tribute to his tenacious support for his constituent Mr Jagtar Singh Johal since his arrest in India in 2017. I appreciate what a difficult time this must be for Mr Johal’s family and friends. Again, I pay tribute to his Member of Parliament for all that he is doing for his constituent in these challenging circumstances.

Consular assistance to British nationals overseas is the primary public service of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and a priority for the Foreign Secretary. Since Mr Johal’s arrest over four years ago, Ministers and officials have consistently raised our concerns about his welfare and treatment directly with the Government of India. With Mr Johal’s consent, this has included raising allegations of torture and mistreatment, and his right to a fair trial. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) raised Mr Johal’s case with Prime Minister Modi in April. The then Foreign Secretary raised Mr Johal’s case with the Indian Minister of External Affairs, Dr Jaishankar, most recently in Delhi on 31 March. Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Minister of State with responsibility for south Asia and the Commonwealth, is also in regular contact with his counterparts across the Indian Government. Since 2017, Ministers and officials have raised Mr Johal’s detention on almost 100 occasions, and they will continue to do so.

In May, the UN working group on arbitrary detention published its opinion that Mr Johal is arbitrarily detained. We take this seriously, and we are committed to doing what we can to assist Mr Johal. On 9 June, the then Foreign Secretary met the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) and Mr Johal’s brother Gurpreet to discuss this matter.

In February this year, lawyers acting for Mr Johal issued a civil litigation claim against Her Majesty’s Government in the High Court. Last month, they detailed their allegations. We must let the legal process take its course, and I will therefore not comment on this matter, in line with long-established practice, as I am sure all Members will appreciate and as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, outlined before the start of the urgent question. I can assure the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire and the House that we will continue to do all we can to support Mr Johal and his family.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am grateful for the Minister’s words, but my constituent had his 188th pre-trial hearing suspended today because the courts in India could not make up their mind. Perhaps we should extend our consideration to him and not just to everyone else who has been mentioned so far.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you mentioned the proceedings that have been brought. I think that it should not be outwith order to say that lawyers representing my constituent submitted a motion at the Royal Courts of Justice seeking redress after compelling evidence emerged linking the United Kingdom Government directly to his arrest and torture almost five years ago.

A case study in the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office annual report in March 2020, which is in the public domain and was uncovered by the human rights group Reprieve—I and the Johal family are extremely grateful for all its work—matches entirely the specific details of Jagtar’s case, with a gut-punch of an admission that he was arrested on the basis of information provided by the intelligence services of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This information has posed a multitude of hard questions for this Government, and especially for the new Prime Minister, the former Foreign Secretary. I am sure that we will get to hear many of them from Members present today. I am hugely grateful to the many Members who have supported this case.

Like hundreds of thousands of UK citizens of Sikh ethnicity, the Singh Johal family travel to India every year, yet now they must wonder if it is safe for them to continue to do so. They must also contend with the realisation that the horror that Jagtar went through in November 2017 of being held incommunicado for 10 days, tortured and forced into signing a blank confession, the arbitrary detention that the previous Prime Minister agreed he has faced since, and his trial by media in the Indian republic were all caused directly, at least for me, by the intervention of the state that is meant to protect him. We have a family, an MP and a House of Commons who want answers on who knew what and when.

Jagtar has a UK passport. I am afraid that is the only passport that I have, and I think it is the only one that you have, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the inside page are written the words:

“Her Britannic Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”

Of all the many questions I could ask the Minister, the one I think is most important is this: do they think that their Government have stayed true to those words in the case of Jagtar Singh Johal?

[Rehman Chishti]

The first point I make to the hon. Member is that the Government’s first priority is the welfare of Mr Johal. That is the first priority of the Government, as it would be the first priority of any Government with regard to British citizens anywhere around the world.

On the hon. Member’s specific point, I return to the point I made earlier—and the point that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, made at the outset—with regard to any civil litigation and to concerns on the intelligence agencies. I cannot and I will not comment on that in this House. Since the hon. Member raised it specifically, I reiterate that Mr Johal has active civil litigation against Her Majesty’s Government on this matter. This is the issue before the court, and we must let the legal process take its course. Therefore, in line with long-established practice, I will not comment on this matter. I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that.

Of course, the Indian Government, having listened to these proceedings, will have to take into account the views of Members of Parliament. Some 140 MPs and peers have expressed an interest in this case. Our former Prime Minister raised it with the Indian Prime Minister. Our former Foreign Secretary raised it with her counterpart, the Indian Minister of External Affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on pursuing this case on behalf of his constituent. He has been assiduous in pursuing justice for Jagtar Singh Johal. I will come back to the plight of Jagtar Singh Johal rather than the case against the Government. I understand that he is a member of the Khalistani Liberation Force, which is a proscribed organisation in India. Indeed, at the moment he is facing up to eight charges of murder or attempted murder. Will my hon. Friend ensure that consular assistance is provided to him so that he gets a fair trial, and then we can deal with the issues that result?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will take the point of order at the end.

[Rehman Chishti]

The specific question that we have before the House today looks at the welfare and treatment of a British national in India, where there are specific concerns about his welfare and treatment. The United Kingdom Government have made it clear through the number of engagements and representations that we have made—nearly 100 between officials and Ministers, including Prime Minister to Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to Foreign Secretary—how importantly we take these concerns. My hon. Friend’s point about the accusations and allegations is that—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Allegations.

[Rehman Chishti]

Allegations. If I may finish, what I would say is that the accusations and allegations that have been made with regard to the situation of a British national abroad need to be looked at fully and fairly, in line with India’s commitments to human rights, domestic law and international law. That is what we would regard for any citizen anywhere around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier, you were clear about what is not exactly a regulation of the House but advice to Members on sub judice and privilege, and that was clearly broken and taken advantage of. I do not know about Government Members, but those on the Opposition side clearly saw it as an abuse of privilege. Frankly, I do not like it when Members become spokespersons for a foreign state. Given that a Member of this House has impugned the integrity of my constituent on the Floor of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, what is open to me as a constituency MP and those defending the rights of their constituents in the courts to ensure that such matters do not happen again?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I deliberately returned to the advice that I had previously given about Members exercising caution in their remarks. As I said, I cannot force people to follow that advice; it is merely advice. He has put on the record his strong view about what was said. If he wishes to pursue that in other ways, I am sure that the Clerks can advise him, but I really cannot add anything further to what I have previously said.

Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 General Committees

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie.

Let me reiterate a point made by the hon. Members for Basildon and Billericay, and for Cardiff South and Penarth, and the right hon. Member for Maldon. First of all, in terms of the Suwalki gap, it is clear to me, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia, that the Government and our allies need to go a lot further to ensure that nothing happens to the Baltic states, who valiantly kept their freedom and the idea of their nations alive during the Soviet occupation. In terms of the demands highlighted by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, the House is clear that this is not enough. The Belarus state is a vast monolith of the Soviet era; it is not just 50—forgive me—lackeys. There is an entire state structure, from local government, national Government, all the way down to the health structure, that needs to be tackled.

I certainly will not move against the motion; I think everyone is totally in agreement, but the Government need to move forward quickly to ensure that the Belarusian regime understands that we all mean business.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

May I begin, just as the Foreign Secretary did, with the Good Friday agreement? There is common cause across the House that that is the sacrosanct treaty that we in this place really must uphold. Obviously, where there are competing treaties, there have to be mechanisms to decide between them, as DUP Members have said.

As the Foreign Secretary said in her piece in yesterday’s Financial Times:

“The protocol was not set in stone forevermore on signing. It explicitly acknowledges the need for possible new arrangements in accordance with the…(Good Friday) Agreement.”

As she has said, our first preference is to renegotiate the text with the EU. We have been working at that for a year and a half, but we have not been able to do it. The EU has not been engaging, as recently as this weekend, she said. To quote another piece, written by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill):

“A good deal of the blame lies with the needlessly rigid and inflexible approach adopted on the EU side.”

I could not agree more. We really need to get negotiation going, and I will speak about negotiation for most of the rest of my speech.

This is a Second Reading debate—nobody expects the Bill to be rammed through the Commons, let alone Parliament, in short order. I understand the arguments that have been put forward throughout the House, including by many learned and senior colleagues on the Conservative Benches, but I will not stand here and undermine and circumscribe the Government’s negotiating position with the EU.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) questioned whether the Bill is a bargaining chip; if we are to have a negotiation, I would rather have as many bargaining chips as possible. I tried to intervene on him during his speech but he would not take my intervention. The fatal mistake that the previous Parliament made between 2017 and 2019 was that too many Members tried to circumscribe the Government’s negotiating position, to undermine our position and to take the EU’s side. The current Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), posed with the EU negotiating team, undermining what the Government were trying to do.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about Members of this House. Does he believe in parliamentary sovereignty? If he does, he will understand that Members had every electoral right to do as they did.

[Aaron Bell]

I completely agree with parliamentary sovereignty. I also believe that no Parliament can bind its successor and am pleased that, following the results of the 2019 general election, we have a much more reasonable Parliament on these matters than we had previously. I might add that we now have a Speaker who is much more reasonable on these matters. The previous Speaker completely undermined what the Government were trying to do in that Parliament. Negotiation is about achieving a win-win. We do not do that by undermining our own position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

In rising to speak this evening, I find myself, unusually, in disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and in agreement —in part at least—with the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I am in agreement only in part because he said in his speech earlier today that we bandy around phrases such as “our precious Union” and “the integrity of our Union” quite a lot in this House, but it is quite clear that not everybody understands what is meant by the “Union” or its “integrity”, so much so that I worry that the meaning—the importance—has indeed been lost.

None the less, the Union does mean quite a lot to those of us who are in politics, because we are fighting every day to maintain it: to retain our national identity and to retain the right, which we all have in this country, to say that we are British, or that we are of this United Kingdom. We may be Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh or English, but we are also British, and all else is secondary to that.

I sympathise with those in Northern Ireland who were alarmed to hear the British Government claim in court that the Northern Ireland protocol “temporarily suspended” article VI of the Act of Union. Article VI created the internal market of the United Kingdom and was designed to give Ireland—now Northern Ireland—residents equal footing with regards to trade, and guarantee equal footing in all future treaties with foreign powers.

To those of us who hold most dear the notion that all in these islands are equal and that all are held in parity of esteem, that article is fundamental to who we are as a people. That is why it is not surprising that those who want to break this Union, to remove that right, to take away our identity, to remove the right to call ourselves British, from those of us who hold that right most dear are against that move today.

The SNP may couch its opposition to the Bill in legalistic language and it may claim, as it did in its amendment, which was not selected, that it was against this Bill because it was against international law—

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Bowie]

I will give way as the hon. Gentleman represents the SNP.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

If the hon. Gentleman is protecting what he and I would both agree is the Treaty of Union, why does he not extend the protocol, even as reformed by the Government, to Scotland, which, like Northern Ireland, voted to remain in the European Union?

[Andrew Bowie]

It might have passed the hon. Member’s attention that we actually had a referendum in Scotland in which the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom. The reason why it was extended to Scotland is that Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom voted as a whole to leave the European Union. He really must catch up. It was eight years ago that we had that argument—and we won.

The SNP is against the Bill because, as it says in clause 1, the introduction, it

“provides that enactments, including the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, are not to be affected by the provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol”.

In effect, the SNP is against the Bill because it affirms our Union and protects its integrity, which is a very bad thing indeed for the separatists.

We, myself included, did vote for the protocol. But, as we have heard numerous times today—I will not waste the House’s time by rehashing the examples that we have already heard—it is not working. Rightly or wrongly, true to previous international obligations or not, whether we like it or not, whether we would rather it were different, whether we brought it upon ourselves or think it the fault of others, the protocol is not working. And almost everyone acknowledges that. The European Union, albeit tacitly, acknowledges that. The protocol fails to meet its first objective. It says, as specified in article 1, paragraph 2 of the protocol itself:

“This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.”

And that is before we even look at whether it passes its own tests regarding trade. It says:

“Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”

It is hugely frustrating that the Commission refused to change the mandate of its representative in the talks, Maroš Šefčovič.

Everyone wants to see a negotiated solution to this. The European Union reopens agreements and negotiates changes with international partners all the time. It is almost certainly the world record holder in reopening international agreements. Having been in Brussels recently and spoken to colleagues in the European Parliament about this, I simply cannot understand the outright refusal to do so on this occasion, particularly when there is provision in the actual protocol to do just that. I do wonder whether all the Opposition’s strenuous efforts in demanding that we negotiate a solution might be better directed in calling for the EU to come to the negotiating table with a mandate to do just that. We cannot negotiate when there is nothing to negotiate about.

I am pleased that the Government have introduced this Bill. We need to resolve the issues of east-west trade. For the people of Northern Ireland, we must see a return to devolved government at Stormont. We must restore the primacy of the Good Friday agreement and we must ensure that parity of esteem for all people on these islands is held dear. I would rather that we did not have to introduce this Bill, but the refusal of the EU to come properly to the negotiating table is a huge frustration, so acting as they are is the Government’s only option. That is why I am proud to be supporting the Bill this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is always good to follow the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), even though I am going to profoundly disagree with him.

It is interesting that we now have a tantalising real-time example of what happens when a part of the UK is able to diverge from the current UK economic model. It turns out that not simply accepting lower growth than south-east England in perpetuity in exchange for a guaranteed lump sum can actually be quite beneficial, and so of course the UK Government want to put an end to it.

It is important, however, to take a historical view of where we are. It behoves the British Government to remember their history, for their predecessors have been here quite a few times before. The end of the seven years war in 1763—a few folk here now might have been around back then—was a catastrophic success for a newly fledged Great Britain. As a result of victory over the perfidious Europeans, it gained supremacy over the North American continent and possessions elsewhere. Let me quote from Pulitzer prize-winning Professor Alan Taylor’s history of the American revolution, here quoting Henry Ellis, a colonial Governor:

“What did Britain gain by the most glorious and successful war on which she ever engaged? A height of glory which excited the envy of the surrounding nations…an extent of empire we were equally unable to maintain, defend or govern”.

Taylor adds:

“Because of that triumph, the empire would reap a revolution in British America”.

As we stand here in these sunlit Brexit uplands, we must also consider the price that this modern-day facsimile of Georgian Britain would have us pay for attaining their own heights of glory. Even then, the idea that this place—this legislature—should be supreme above all others led them to make similar mistakes.

The contradictions of British North America were slightly different from those we face today. In short, while the colonialists liked to distinguish themselves from their French and Spanish rivals as more democratic because they had a form of self-rule—let us not call it devolution—we now know that that was somewhat erroneous, as that self-rule was very much restricted to Protestant landowners. While that made the ruling of the original 13 colonies relatively straightforward, the newly won possessions in New France did not fit that model, so this Parliament decided to pass the Quebec Act, which did not go down too well with the puritans in New England or elsewhere.

The vastly expanded sphere of influence was also much more expensive to maintain. Therefore, despite the warnings that this would not be appreciated, taxes were levied for the first time on colonial possessions, first through the Sugar Act 1764 and then the Currency Act 1764 and the Stamp Act 1765. All the time, the consequences for those who were subjected to the legislation were ignored, and that slowly drove a wedge between England’s interests and those of its periphery. [Interruption.] Perhaps Ministers should listen. We know what happened next.

I take us on that American detour because we live in hope that Ministers will reflect on how their wonderful wheeze, designed to reassert the primacy of this Parliament, will not work in places where people look to legislatures that are closer to them.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I will not, I am afraid, as I want to make some progress. Quite simply, be we in the 18th century or the 21st century, introducing legislation that damages the economic self-interest of those on the periphery to benefit those in the core will never end well, especially when, as in this case, it satisfies the desires solely of the parliamentary sovereigntist-fetishists, who do not represent any real majority, even in the core.

Let me conclude with a quote from Edmund Burke, who was not only the father of conservatism but an Irishman and a Unionist to boot. Many will remember how in “Reflections on the Revolution in France” he said:

“People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backwards to their ancestors. Besides, the people of England well know that the idea of inheritance furnishes a sure principle of conservation, and a sure principle of transmission”.

But I think more pertinent to our discussions is what comes a few paragraphs later, where he said:

“The institutions of policy, the goods of fortune, the gifts of providence are handed down to us, and from us, in the same course and order.”

How providential it is, then, that this Conservative and Unionist Government’s blessed inheritance, and this state’s institutions of policy, are to repeat the same mistakes that have always been made. It is shame for the people of Northern Ireland that the economic and political damage of the Bill is to be visited on them in such a manner.

Prime Minister’s Visit to India

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

Yes. As president of COP, the UK is absolutely focused on ensuring that the promises made in Glasgow are delivered. I was really pleased to hear that during the Prime Minister’s visit we launched the hydrogen and science innovation hub to accelerate affordable green hydrogen; we committed new funding for the green grids initiative that we announced in Glasgow; and there was collaboration on the public transport electrification. Globally, we also committed up to £75 million to rolling out adaptable clean tech innovations from India to the wider Indo-Pacific and to Africa. That benefits not only India but the Indo-Pacific, Africa, the UK and, indeed, the planet.

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

I wish every Sikh on these islands a happy Vaisakhi, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing the urgent question.

The Minister mentioned Scotch whisky but not the Scot Jagtar Singh Johal; she noted a list of priorities, but not Jagtar Singh Johal. Can the Minister advise on whether, in discussions with Prime Minister Modi, the Prime Minister—not civil servants, not with a note—directly challenged the arbitrary detention of Jagtar Singh Johal, who now faces a death penalty, and question the trial-by-media that my constituent has faced since 2017? If not, why not?

[Vicky Ford]

The Prime Minister did raise Mr Johal’s case and handed over a note on consular cases. The 2030 roadmap for India-UK future relations, which was agreed by the UK and Indian Governments, includes a commitment

“to resolve long-running or complex consular cases.”

The Foreign Secretary has agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman and for Mr Johal’s brother and wife to join the meeting. I know officials are in contact to schedule that meeting.