Jagtar Singh Johal

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Rehman Chishti

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 ---

[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.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Rehman Chishti

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rehman Chishti]

It is a real pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for whom I have huge admiration and respect. I sat in this Chamber on 2 December 2015 and listened to his speech on countering Daesh in Iraq and Syria. He took a principled position then, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, and it was one of the best speeches this House has heard.

I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the comments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who said on 8 September that what was being proposed in the Bill

“does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

That is completely and utterly unacceptable. I am also a lawyer, and I will refer to that comment a little further in my speech.

I accept that the majority of the Bill is necessary for an effective United Kingdom single market when we are no longer subject to EU rules. I campaigned for Brexit, my constituency voted 65% to deliver Brexit, and my voting record is the same as that of the Prime Minister and many of those who sit in Cabinet with regard to delivering Brexit. Brexit meant many things to many people, but for me it was about sovereignty. The British public elect their Members of Parliament, who have the final say on the laws that govern our country and our citizens. But Brexit must be delivered in the right way, respecting the United Kingdom’s commitment to the rule of law, and as a country that stands by the word it gives. That cannot be compromised on.

I have real concerns about clauses 42, 43 and 45 of this Bill. Brexit was about sovereignty—taking back control of our laws, borders and money—but under those provisions, we would defer that authority to Ministers, who could then, unilaterally, withdraw from an international agreement passed by this House. How can that be sovereignty? It cannot. I agreed with the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), when he gave his speech to this House on 14 September, about those three specific provisions. He is a great man, and I had the privilege to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was the Attorney General.

For me, there can be no compromise about one’s core beliefs, and my core belief is a respect for the rule of law. If you give your word, you have to honour it. What the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on 8 September—we sat in our parliamentary offices, and we listened to him—is that

“this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

What are we saying to our citizens—that they can break other laws in a specific and limited way? Our country is going through difficult, challenging times and we are asking people to adhere to guidance, yet we have a Minister of the Crown saying that from the Dispatch Box.

There is something called honour, and for me I could not serve as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. I conveyed that message to the Government last Sunday, and I was told that the Government would not be accepting the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). On that basis, on Monday I took the decision to resign my position. We talk about being patriotic, and our national anthem says:

“Long may she reign. May she defend our laws”—

and “defend our laws” is what this is about.

I am grateful to have been the Prime Minister’s special envoy. It was a real privilege and honour to serve as the United Kingdom’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We took forward 17 different recommendations of the 22 in the Truro report, but I also helped, along with the United States and the ambassador from the Netherlands, to set up the international alliance to promote freedom of religion or belief around the world. We used to say to countries, “Respect article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights”. People can have whatever faith they want or no faith, but others must respect that.

Hon. Members would expect the Prime Minister’s special envoy for the United Kingdom to go along to the table and say, “I think we should do this at the Security Council or we should that at the United Nations General Assembly. We should do this at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe or we should do that at Human Rights Council.” But after what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at the Dispatch Box on 8 September, how can one go and lecture others when we are in this situation?

The question people ask me is: why, then, are you supporting Government amendment 66? I am supporting amendment 66 for this reason. If we look at the Order Paper on Monday 14 September and Tuesday 15 September, we see that amendment 4 put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst had only 13 signatories. That amendment is for parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament should decide: this Parliament enacted its support of the withdrawal agreement, and if it now wants to come out of it, this Parliament should say so, not defer that to Ministers. However, only 13 Members of Parliament had signed it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I am also grateful to the likes of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who came in in 2019, who signed the amendment.

The amendment asks for parliamentary sovereignty, but on Monday the Bill passed by 77 votes in this House, so how do I know I can get 40 votes to overturn clauses 42, 43 and 45, which I could never accept. No hon. Member would accept clauses 42, 43 and 45, so when we are in that position, do we accept amendment 66, rather than the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, being pragmatic and being reasonable? I say this as someone who for three years, from 2004 to 2007, worked with the former Prime Minister of Pakistan who lost her life fighting for democracy, going to discussions in the Foreign Office with the Foreign Secretaries Jack Straw and David Miliband and looking at the transition to democracy. There always has to be give and take, being pragmatic and being realistic. On that basis, to avoid having to put clauses 42, 43 and 45 in the Bill, I support the proposals in Government amendment 66 for parliamentary oversight.

I want to finish with a quote, Sir Graham. I know time is of the essence. Parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary scrutiny are of the utmost importance to each and every one of us. We are all among equals. We all have a voice. We take into account the views of our constituents, and we come here and we represent them. Over summer, I read a brilliant quote from 2010 by a former Member of Parliament, before I came to this House. I will read the quote. Some will recognise the person. He is a man of great integrity and he did the right thing. This is what he said about taking Parliament seriously:

“a word to the coming generation of politicians. I have one simple message: take Parliament seriously. If we, the elected, do not, why should anybody else? By all means…support the programme on which one’s party was elected, but we are not automatons. We are not sent here merely to be cheerleaders, or to get stiff necks looking up at the fount of power. We are here to exercise our judgment—to hold Ministers to account for the powers they hold. And that means proper scrutiny. It means insisting that Ministers engage seriously with Parliament, and that they are open to dialogue.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 486.]

On that basis, I am grateful to the Prime Minister for listening, engaging and ensuring that we have amendment 66, should these matters come before the House and if the United Kingdom ever deviated from its commitment. Initially, the provisions were put forward under statutory instruments, under which the Government could have put forward a 90-minute affirmative motion, with the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box for an hour. Please, as I tried to ask him earlier, will the Minister clarify that when and if this comes back to the House, there will be a full debate, with as many Members of Parliament who need to speak being able to?

One of the great things I did was to represent our country at the canonisation of St John Henry Newman, a great British saint with global impact. I will end by quoting his “Lead, Kindly Light”:

“…I do not ask to see

The distant scene; one step enough for me.”

When and if the Government look to bring these measures forward, please do it so that there are appropriate checks and balances at every level by this House.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). I congratulate him on the moral choice of resigning from the Government, although I remind him that when it comes the law of the country, there is the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As a Scottish nationalist, I have often tried to stick to our maxim of leaving Ireland to the Irish, but in these constitutionally fraught times I feel it is necessary to remind the British Conservative and Unionist party of the histories and stories across these islands that give us an understanding of where we find ourselves today. We can be in no doubt that this Government will seek to portray this perfidious power grab as actually strengthening the devolution settlement, which so many of us have fought so hard to secure, but we know very well from the history of Northern Ireland that rewriting devolution by decree is simply unsustainable.

Let us move beyond the bluff and bluster of this Government’s Front Bench and the obsequious chatter of their pliant Back Benchers, and remind ourselves very clearly that a Union requires Unionists at both ends. Usually, when I look over to my Scottish Conservative and Unionist opposites—I do not see any here tonight—I see fellow Scots who are equally passionate in their convictions for our nation of Scotland as any on these Benches. They are Unionists who are looking desperately to the south to see their convictions mirrored by English colleagues, but I am afraid that the only colleague they found tonight was the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).