HC Deb 13 November 1964 vol 701 cc1425-36

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. G. Rogers.]

3.18 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

The matter I wish to raise with the Foreign Office arises from the death of an English schoolgirl in France, about three and a half months ago. The last thing I want to do is unnecessarily to add to the pain which has been caused by this accident to those concerned, but there arise from it—and this is the view of the family of the girl and their doctor—rather wider matters of more general concern particularly affecting those who travel abroad. That is why I am raising it in this way with the Foreign Office, and I have given the hon. Gentleman opposite some notice of the main points that I have in mind.

I must, first, give some outline of what occurred. During the last week of July Miss Katrina Cheeseman, a 17-years old schoolgirl from Tunbridge Wells, was on a hitch-hiking holiday with two other girls. They were in France on their way to Spain. On Thursday, 30th July, near Lyons, the car in which they were riding crashed, and Miss Cheeseman was fatally injured. The accident occurred on Thursday evening, 30th July. No word of the accident reached Mr. Cheeseman, the girl's father, who lives in Kent, until about 24 hours later, at about 2.40 p.m. on 31st July.

The British vice-consul concerned—I am not proposing to give his name; it would serve no purpose—did not learn of the accident until Friday morning, 31st July. I would stress that for that he was not to blame. The failure, if there was one in that respect, lay with the French police.

On Friday, the British vice-consul informed the Foreign Office, and, as I understand the facts, the Foreign Office then informed Mr. Cheeseman. This was about four o'clock on Friday afternoon. The Foreign Office told Mr. Cheeseman that if he wanted further particulars about the accident he should call the British vice-consul by telephone direct. This Mr. Cheeseman did. The British vice-consul undertook to obtain more information about the girl's condition and to telephone back to Mr. Cheeseman.

This, I understand—for reasons not wholly clear to any of us concerned with this matter—he failed to do. He has indicated that he did not know Mr. Cheeseman's telephone number, though Mr. Cheeseman declares that this had been left with him when the first call was made. The fact remains, which is not in dispute though the details may be, that Mr. Cheeseman was left in suspense.

On Saturday, 1st August, a Dr. Penny, who is Mr. Cheeseman's doctor, himself telephoned the British vice-consul. Throughout that day—this was 48 hours after the accident had occurred—efforts were made to get more reliable news as to Miss Cheeseman's condition, and, eventually, at about 8.5 p.m. on that Saturday—the time is quite important—the British vice-consul booked a call to Mr. Cheeseman. He was told that there would be a delay of one and a half hours and eventually he got through at 10.30 p.m., a delay of about two and a half hours. He said that the telephone conditions were adversely affected by the British postal strike then on.

Meanwhile, in England, Dr. Penny, the doctor concerned with the case, had booked a bed at two specialised hospitals in this country with a view to moving Miss Cheeseman to them if possible. This, of course, lent some urgency to the endeavour to get reliable news as to Miss Cheeseman's condition from those concerned in France. Mr. Cheeseman decided eventually to charter a special stretcher-carrying aircraft, and on the following day, Sunday, 2nd August, he and Dr. Penny flew to Vichy. Unhappily, their journey was in vain. I must add that on arrival they did receive every consideration and help from the British vice-consul concerned.

This is the outline of the story, and I have deliberately omitted certain details. I do not think that it will conflict in any important respect with the evidence which the Minister of State will have before him, and I hope that it will make the hon. Gentleman realise that there are a number of very unsatisfactory aspects about this case. I think that it would be quite unfair to attribute all the blame to the British vice-consul for the earliest delays involved. For these he emphatically, was not at fault. I think that no one disputes that.

There is evidence that on Friday and Saturday the British vice-consul did what he could. There is no doubt—though I have no direct evidence of this —that this particular French hospital, which was not a large one, made the securing of accurate information, certainly by people who were trying to get it from this country, difficult. But when full allowance is made for that, the fact remains that the father and his doctor found it extremely difficult to get vital information for two and half days after the accident occurred.

What concerns me, and them, is not so much whether there was on this occasion a particular failure at any time by the British vice-consul—at this distance a quite profitless inquiry—but whether the system of communications worked as it should, and whether there arises from this family tragedy lessons which ought not to be too quickly forgotten and overlooked.

This brings me to the more general points which I want to raise. A great number of people travel to Europe nowadays. A great many families let their children travel to Europe, and that is probably a good thing for them. Accidents are bound to occur. I know that British consuls and British representatives overseas have a great many calls made upon them, but surely it is very important—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would dispute it—that when an emergency of this kind arises there should be a clear-cut drill for informing and guiding the next of kin who may be concerned. After studying in some detail the rather haphazard arrangements which marked this case I cannot believe that there is such a drill.

What precisely are the responsibilities of British representatives overseas for notifying families who may be concerned in something of this kind? In this case the first news reached the family from the Foreign Office. I think that I must be right in assuming that the first news from overseas his sent there. In this instance the Foreign Office instructed Mr. Cheeseman when they first told him the news to get in direct touch with the British vice-consul. I have no doubt that this was right. I can think of circumstances further afield than Western Europe where such procedure would be more difficult. If, for example, there is no telephone in the home conerned, what happens?

Secondly, the telephone itself and the time taken to get the calls through played a very large part in the story. In a matter of life and death it is surely possible for a British representative overseas to obtain some priority when making a telephone call to this country. Does the authority for this exist? I am not altogether without sympathy for the British vice-consul who was concerned. Obviously it is very difficult for a busy man moving between his office and home and involved in something running round the clock, so to speak, to keep in close touch with a booked telephone call to this country which is taking two hours or more to get through. All I wish to say is that I think that, strike or no strike, no newspaper correspondent would have been subject to such delay. They have their own ways of getting calls by priority if they are prepared to pay for them.

Then we have the initial delay in getting information to the British vice-consul and for this, obviously, he bears no blame at all. There was a French police or hospital responsibility. What is the routine? Are the police anywhere in Western Europe, where most British tourists go, clear about the channels which must be followed when a British national is involved in a serious accident? Do we concern ourselves with their awareness of the right course to follow? This would apply in every country, and I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman cannot give a blanket assurance on the subject.

All hospitals in any country are reserved about giving details of the condition of a patient, particularly a patient who is seriously injured. But surely British representatives, acting on behalf of families in this country, should if not given access, at least have made available to them more information than perhaps other people might obtain. This situation must have arisen before. What is done about it by the Foreign Office?

There is a fourth consideration. A great many people who go abroad from this country are making their first visit to Europe and these include a great many young people. British consuls may feel that most of these visitors are only too well aware where they should turn if they get into difficulties. Those of us who travel abroad are aware of the sort of problems which descend on British consuls. But are all travellers who go abroad for the first time, particularly those who come from schools, aware of these things? In this case awareness of what should be done in an emergency would have been of no avail to Miss Cheeseman; it might perhaps have been of avail to her less seriously injured companions.

There is a case for considering whether young people at least ought not to be more fully informed before they leave this country about whom they should get in touch with overseas if they get into difficulties or accidents. As they have all got to leave in possession of a passport it would surely not be impossible to provide them with some information of this kind.

The Minister may say, and I hope that he will, that this is a sad but exceptional case and that nothing quite like it has ever occurred before nor is likely to occur again. But even if that were true, and I do not think that it could be wholly true, I am not sure that it is entirely fair to the British vice-consul concerned in this case. I feel that he encountered certain difficulties in this tragedy which were not entirely of his own making.

We all know that the Service Departments, of necessity, have devised the most careful arrangements for helping next-of-kin when a sudden crisis arises. Clearly, that cannot be done on behalf of all British tourists who travel overseas; that would be a ridiculous suggestion to make. But the organisation for dealing with these situations ought, I think, to be reasonably foolproof, in the interests not only of those who travel but in the interests of our own representatives overseas who in most of our experience have more to do and more calls on their time than most people.

I have dwelt on these generalities because it is here, it seems to me, that there may be particular experience for future guidance. It would be, I know, a comfort to those who have been most closely concerned in this case to feel that this experience may be some guide as to what might be done in the future, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman—to whom I am grateful—when he answers for the Foreign Office will feel able to respond in that spirit.

3.33 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley)

At the outset I should like to add my condolences and regrets to those which have been expressed to Mr. Cheeseman, in his sad loss, by the then Foreign Secretary and others. I would also like to express my satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has raised this matter in so fair and constructive a way. I do not seriously dispute his history of the case, though there are a number of points on which the documents at my disposal might lead to some dispute.

There are three points I should like to make about the details of the case. First, with regard to the events of 31st July, there seems to be no doubt that the vice-consul concerned did not telephone Mr. Cheeseman in the way that had been expected and for that, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), who was then Foreign Secretary, has expressed his regrets. But two main criticisms have been leveled—not by the right hon. Member for Ashford, but elsewhere—against the vice-consul concerned, to the effect that the information that he obtained about the precise nature of Miss Cheeseman's injuries was inadequate and that he was slow in transmitting the details he had learned to her father and doctor.

I must say that, having studied all the documents, I am satisfied that from the evening of 31st July until 2nd August, the vice-consul was tireless in his efforts to get such information as possible, and that he could not properly be expected to have done more than he did in correctly transmitting the statement of the hospital authorities in Vichy. It is important to remember that Vichy is about 100 miles from Lyons.

British consuls are in frequent touch with French hospitals but their authority does not run to medical matters.

Hospitals themselves, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to recognise, are often reluctant to disclose details about a patient to a layman, even if he is a consul. It also seems clear from the mass of documents at my disposal that the delay in putting through a telephone call on the evening of 1st August was due to the heavy demand on the telephone and telegram services resulting from the postal strike in this country. The strike was already over but there was an accumulation of calls and business generally.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has used this sad case to spotlight the problems of the increasing tourist traffic and the responsibility of my Department through the Consular Service. I think that it is good that he devoted perhaps the major part of his speech to this general problem. He has drawn attention to the general question of how far, in these days of foreign travel, consular protection is extended to British subjects who flock in millions to the popular tourist centres of Europe.

When a serious accident occurs abroad to some unfortunate British subject, he and his family naturally expect the British consul to give a helping hand. In a tragic case such as that of Miss Cheese-man, our consular officers stand ready to give this assistance promptly and sympathetically.

In the broader perspective of British interests abroad, however, the very large number of personal tragedies and mishaps —some great and some small—which arise every year confront the Foreign Service with a very difficult problem. Some 5 million British subjects a year now travel from these islands on business or pleasure, the great majority of them bound for Western Europe.

Of these, a large proportion travel to or through France. In France, however, we have only six superintending consular posts, with a number of small subordinate posts manned almost entirely by honorary consuls. With the best will in the world it is impossible for a handful of consular officers to look after all those British subjects in France who get into difficulties. As a general rule, they receive every cooperation from the French authorities.

As a result of this tragic accident, the Consul-General at Lyons has written to the Préfets of all Départments in his consular district re-emphasising that he should be given the earliest possible notification of accidents involving British subjects. As the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, the initial delay was highly important in the case of Miss Cheeseman. The House may ask what are the proper functions of a consul. The Plowden Committee on the Overseas Services wrote in its Report last February that: The Head of a Consular post is responsible for all British commercial interests, including export promotion, in his district. He must maintain good relations with the local authorities, keep his Ambassador posted about political and economic developments, support British information and cultural activities and provide a focus and rallying point for the local British community. The Committee also expressed the view that the economic and commercial functions of consuls are, in present conditions, highly important.

No one would claim, of course, that that removes the highly important function of the British consular service in protecting British subjects abroad. The Plowden Committee, however, made the point that consular officers ought not to be expected to provide a free round-the-clock travel agency service". Consular protection is essentially the protection by the consul of one of his fellow nationals against the authorities of a foreign country with which his national has got into trouble.

In all their dealings with the local government, with the judicial authorities, the police, the immigration officials or the national assistance organisation, British subjects may look to the consul to advise and assist them. But he cannot take the place of those authorities, nor can he himself give direct assistance to every British subject who finds himself in difficulties.

Consuls are asked all too often to act as interpreters, to obtain seats in aircraft, to search for missing luggage and to settle disputes with hotel managers. These things are not a part of a consul's duties.

There should be no room for misunderstanding of what consuls can and cannot do. For several years we have given to every applicant for a British passport a copy of a leaflet called Essential Information for Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who intend to Travel Overseas. If the simple advice in it were followed there would be fewer cases of accident and distress and fewer calls on our consular officers, who would then be better able to attend immediately and efficiently to the type of case we are discussing today and to those who find themselves really up against it in spite of exercising all due care. It may be that the explanatory leaflet can be strengthened and its dissemination widened.

There can be no doubt that our consuls give unstinted assistance as far as lies within their power. They visit and advise persons detained for some offence against the law, notify relatives of disasters, repatriate the destitute and make arrangements for the journeys and the reception in this country of invalids. In this latter connection, I pay tribute to the great assistance which the Foreign Office and our consuls receive from voluntary organisations in this country.

Few countries, if any, give such comprehensive service abroad to their nationals, through consular officers, as we do. But the tourist traffic is steadily increasing and the Government cannot accept an unlimited commitment to satisfy all the demands of these millions of travellers.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether British consuls, as a matter of routine, communicate with persons in this country through the Foreign Office, or direct. Our consuls normally communicate through the Foreign Office, which is in a position to check addresses and telephone numbers and, if need be, to use other channels to convey urgent messages. But consuls may, at their discretion, communicate direct by telephone or telegraph with the person concerned in this country. After an initial message has been passed through the Foreign Office, consuls often deal direct for the sake of speed and mutual convenience.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the delays in communications between consular posts abroad and this country. I am advised that normally facilities exist for official telephone calls from our consular officers abroad to this country to be given priority as urgent Government messages. In the period in question, the telephone service from France to England was, as I pointed out, seriously delayed. Generally speaking, European countries grant these priority facilities and our consuls make full use of them, but they cannot always be depended upon.

So far as I am aware, the experience of Press correspondents in telephoning from France to this country is no different from that of our consuls, but in the affairs of Fleet Street the right hon. Member for Ashford has greater experience than I have.

Mr. Deedes

This is one of the crucial points of the whole issue. What concerns me is whether British representatives overseas have the authority, when it is required, to use the more urgent priority rate, which, naturally, would be more expensive, and whether matters of life or death, involving even one person, would be accepted as coming within and being justified for this priority rate.

Mr. Padley

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an immediate reply, but I undertake to have the matter looked into. It must be remembered that if, when they telephone the Foreign Office, they are being given priority as an urgent matter of Governmental business, there may be no advantage, but I will undertake to see that that point is looked into.

I will also give careful attention during the winter to means of improving the efficiency of our consular posts during the tourist season. Local reinforcements have been arranged in past years to cope with the seasonal pressure of the tourist traffic and, to a lesser extent, we have supplied temporary additions to staff from this country. We will look again into these arrangements, but I should not like to mislead the House by suggesting that any substantial increase in consular staff might be possible. The manpower resources of the Foreign Service are already strained to the utmost and any extension abroad of the welfare services developed in this country is quite impracticable for financial reasons. The requirements of consular protection must be viewed in the light of our duty towards British interests as a whole.

I thank the right hon. Member for Ashford for raising this matter on the Adjournment. He has done a public service in focusing attention on the general problem which arises from the tragic death of Miss Cheeseman and I give the undertakings I have announced in my speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Four o'clock.