§ Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington)I wish to bring to the attention of the House the problems facing a constituent of mine and his wife who is being held in prison by the Indian Government. In those circumstances, some background information may be of use.
Mr. Paul Bedi and his wife are both British subjects and are respected in the Asian community, not only in my constituency in Hayes, but throughout Britain. I have letters which prove their status in and value to the community. Indeed, one of those letters is from the Prime Minister and is dated 3 June 1985.
Mr. Bedi is a Sikh leader. He is a teacher of mentally handicapped children in Ealing and he is, for how long we cannot now be sure, chairman of the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society.
Earlier this year, in May, Mr. Bedi's wife undertook a trip to India to make arrangements for her daughter's dowry. When she arrived in New Delhi she was met by the eldest son of the Minister for Home Affairs in Delhi, a Mr. Buta Singh. The son arrived at the airport and quickly took Mrs. Bedi—who is also known as Mrs. Kaur—through immigration and customs. She was driven to where she was staying and subsequently during that visit she dined twice with the Home Affairs Minister. Indeed, she received VIP treatment on a surprising scale.
While Mrs. Bedi was there, she attempted, at the request of friends in Britain, to meet someone who had been detained by the Indian Government merely because he had lost his passport. She made an effort to see that person but because the arrangements took place in another part of India she was unable to do so. After making arrangements for the dowry and having had those social meetings with the Home Affairs Minister, she returned to the United Kingdom. That was a fairly uneventful visit.
I should add that the brother of Mr. Buta Singh, the Home Affairs Minister, who is the equivalent to our Home Secretary, also lives in my constituency, and is a friend and supporter of Mr. Bedi and his wife.
When Mrs. Bedi returned to the United Kingdom her eldest daughter's wedding took place and she received good wishes from the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons. I have copies of the letters sent by them to Mr. Bedi and his wife.
During that time there was an election for the post of chairman of the Anglo-Asian Conservative society and, like the good politician he is, and we all try to be, Mr. Bedi decided he would do his best to ensure that he became chairman. He was successful on 18 August. I have to say that there is a great deal of anger among the people he defeated, in particular a Mr. Saroop, who has managed the organisation for some time. He took it upon himself to say some rather angry things about Mr. Bedi and to him because of the result. I make no comment about democracy within that society. All I can say is that it seems good politics to ensure, if one wants to win something, that one has friends who will vote in one's favour and out vote one's opponents. That is the story of the events that occurred between Mrs. Bedi's first visit to India and the second visit.
She went to India again on 27 August to see her father who was sick and to show the family some pictures of the wedding and other information. She took with her the 1505 cutting from an Asian newspaper printed in this country which showed pictures of the wedding. Unfortunately for her, instead of photocopying one side of the paper, she took the newspaper with her. On the reverse side of the details of the wedding and the support from the Prime Minister and others, there was an advertisement regarding Sikh extremist leaders. That will become significant.
As I have said, she arrived to see her father and relatives and had quite a long stay in India. On 18 October she was on her way to the airport with somebody from the British high commission in New Delhi who was seeing her off. As she was about to board the aeroplane in the early hours of the morning she was taken off by the police for questioning. One of the things they held against her was the cutting that shows the details of the wedding on the front and on the back details of the extreme Sikh movement.
She was questioned for a considerable time but no charges were made against her. Her passport was taken away and she was told to make frequent appearances at the police station in New Delhi. Throughout the 14 days from the time of her arrest I made contact with the Foreign Office and the Minister responsible for consular matters. I had several phone calls and actually met him to discuss the situation. In fact, I took Mrs. Bedi's husband with me on one occasion. It seemed impossible for the Foreign Office and the high commission in India to get very far. They were thwarted and were not told what the likely charges would be. They were not told whether she was to be released.
It was generally suggested that the Anglo-Indian situation is a bit delicate at the moment and that India is concerned about Britain being friends of Sikhs and not deporting Sikh extremists—people whom the Indians think are Sikh extremists. It was said that the matter should be kept low key because the Government do not want to exacerbate the situation.
After 12 days of getting nowhere fast, at the request of Mr. Bedi and some of his colleagues I decided to fly to New Delhi to see whether I could intervene on behalf of Mrs. Bedi, who was not allowed to come home. When I arrived on 31 October the high commission had been unable to arrange for me to see anyone. The authorities concerned flatly refused to see any representatives of Mrs. Bedi, despite the fact that she was my constituent and I had flown from the United Kingdom to try to influence the situation.
Because of the inability of our high commission to arrange a meeting for me with Mrs. Bedi, who was able to move freely around Delhi, I met a local politician who put me in touch with the Speaker of the Indian House of Commons. Within five minutes of meeting that man he had picked up the telephone, got through to Mr. Buta Singh, the Home Affairs Minister, and a meeting was arranged for me the next morning, Monday 3 November, at Mr. Buta Singh's office. I was made to feel as if I had asked to have an audience with, if I may use the expression, our Lord. I was made to feel that I was lucky to have the opportunity to meet such a man.
I arrived at 11 o'clock that morning and was ushered into his office. After the usual niceties he said, "Have you something for me—a gift?" In my usual ignorance of such affairs I pretended that I did not know what he was talking about and, effectively, the interview ended. He told me that he knew nothing of the family or of the case. He said that he would have to take advice from his officials. 1506 I have a reference from the same Mr. Buta Singh dated 31 October 1965 which he gave on behalf of Paul Bedi. It says that he is a social worker and the reference goes on:
I have known him for long past. He has impressed me with his devotion towards the national integration movement of India.In spite of that, he sat there and told me he knew nothing of the family or the case. I asked him whether he had had a phone call from his own brother who lives in my constituency on behalf of the lady. He did not answer. I asked him whether he had had a phone call from Mr. Bedi direct and he did not answer. He then said that he had an important Cabinet meeting to attend and we had to end the meeting. He said that he would ring at 5 o'clock that evening, 3 November, to tell me What had happened and what views he might have after locking into the case. I am still waiting for that telephone call.The next day through the high commission I attempted to obtain an audience—I suppose that is the correct word to use for the Prime Minister of India these days in view of the way he lords it around the world—to see whether I could raise the matter at that level. I was told by the high commission through the Prime Minister's private office that he would be ringing me later that day. Again, I am still waiting for that phone call. In the meantime, I went with Mrs. Bedi to the police headquarters in New Delhi. I cannot find words to describe the conditions at the so-called police headquarters. If the prisons of India are anything like the police headquarters, I have great concern for the people of that country who might be interned within them.
I arrived at police headquarters for a meeting with the deputy commissioner of police who was again to interrogate this lady at 1 o'clock. We were still sitting there at 3 o'clock although she and her lawyer had been separated from me. At 3 o'clock that afternoon I was asked to leave. I said that I was not prepared to leave until I had heard what they were saying and what they were going to do to my constituent. My constituent's lawyer then advised me to go because they said I might be locked up. There may be some people in this country, perhaps in my own party, who would prefer that. However, I decided to take the lawyer's advice and I left.
It was 9.40 that evening, after nine hours, that that lady was allowed to leave. Again, they did not tell her whether she was to be charged. She left in a very distraught state. In my submission, she was in no fit state to be treated in that way. I am not qualified in the medical profession, but one could see that she was on the point of a breakdown and that she needed help, support and understanding. I would add that that was given by the high commission. Miss Docherty, who was responsible for consular affairs, performed an excellent job, doing all she could to support the lady.
I came back and reported to the Foreign Office on this matter. While I was in India I was told quite clearly by the high commission staff that, "The British Government are very concerned about Anglo-Indian relations. We must not give the impression that we are treating this lady differently from any other consular case because the Indian Government might say that we are treating her specially because she is a Sikh and they might say that the British Government are treating Sikhs specially and harbouring potential terrorists."
I find all of that rather amazing bearing in mind the long friendship that Mr. Bedi and his wife had— 1507 perhaps still have, I do not know—with the Minister for Home Affairs. I asked the Foreign Office if it could tell me in how many other consular cases the prisoner involved was a personal friend of somebody the equivalent of our Home Secretary, had been welcomed by him in his official car, taken to his home and dined with him twice. Indeed, I forgot to mention that when Mrs. Bedi was lifted from the plane she had gifts from Mr. Buta Singh, the Home Affairs Minister, for his brother in this country. I have never heard of a similar case in which such circumstances have taken place.
The other interesting thing is that some time after my return Mr. Bedi had a personal telephone call from the Indian high commissioner in this country, saying: "Have you heard the good news?" Mr. Bedi said "No, what is it?" The reply was, "Your wife is to be released, and she is coming home." One can imagine the delight in the husband's heart when he heard that. He told his children, and they were thrilled to hear that at last their mother would be coming home. An hour later Mr. Bedi had a telephone call from his wife's lawyer, saying, "She is being charged and she is moving from the place where she is staying outside the police headquarters to a cell in the police headquarters."
What sort of country is it that can tell the high commissioner in this country to pass on personally to a man the message that his wife is being released and within the hour tell him the opposite? It is appalling for a so-called liberal, civilised Government to behave in that way. However, when I was asked for a bribe by the Home Affairs Minister, I should not have been surprised by such an attitude. I understand that we give about £114 million in various sorts of overseas aid to India. I do not know why. If that is the sort of Government who run that country, I reckon that we could almost double the Christmas bonus that we give to our old-age pensioners by redirecting India's money to them. That is a personal view, but it shows how strongly I feel about the disgusting treatment meted out by the Indian Government to my constituent, and about their attitude.
A newspaper cutting dated 30 November this year states:
The investigating agency admits that so far there is no concrete evidence against Mrs. Kaur.I say to our Foreign Office that it is no good sitting down and playing the waiting game, saying, "Let's see what happens. Let's keep it quiet." That is not the way in which to treat this situation. If we could intervene at the top level with the Iranian Government to get the release of a British subject in Iran, why on earth are we not intervening at the top level to get Mrs. Bedi released, when she is being held on what I consider to be trumped-up charges?We must discuss the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. I understand from a newspaper today that is likely to be disbanded after a meeting in Conservative Central Office this morning, although, on checking with Central Office, I was told that it is not likely to happen. In the newspapers and elsewhere it has been suggested that there has been a secret takeover of the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. Before the election took place, Sikh representation on the society was low. We are told that the Sikhs have taken over, and that is one of the reasons why Central Office has taken such action.
1508 Let me tell the House what the breakdown of the society's executive committee is since the election in August. There are five Moslems, five Sikhs, three Hindus, one Bengali and one Englishman. Does that sound like a Sikh takeover? Does that sound like an organisation that has a one-sided view of what is needed to help our party win the next election? It does not seem so to me.
Mr. Saroop, who has manipulated and managed the society for many years—he has been chairman for six years out of a possible 12—was annoyed about this allegation. It is alleged—I say "alleged" advisedly—that he has contacts in India. It is not surprising to hear that when pressure was put on Mrs. Bedi, when she was in India, that was just after the election of her husband to the position of chairman. She was vulnerable to pressure in India by those over there who hate the thought of a genuine Sikh, who represents the community, and who has the support of the Hindu and Moslem groups in this country, running what the Indian Government consider to be an influential organisation.
It is not difficult to believe that pressure has been brought upon Mrs. Bedi so as to get Mr. Bedi to resign from his post over here, but, judging by the newspaper reports, the information that I am beginning to get is that he will have to resign or he will be kicked out. The organisation has been in existence for 11 years, and it is strange that the first time a Sikh takes the chair democratically the society has to be re-examined to make it more representative. The figures that I have given show how representative the society is.
The general feeling among correspondents in India to whom I spoke when I was there, and this is shown in the press coverage since then, is that Mrs. Bedi might be being held out there on trumped-up charges as a result of the political situation in this country. I often think that the Foreign Office always looks to the Foreign Office's interests first and the British interests afterwards. Again, that is a personal view, although I know that it is held by other colleagues, too. Yet again the Foreign Office wants to treat this as a consular matter when I believe that it is more important than that.
In the first stages, when the Foreign Office was short of information, it was doing all that it could. I praised it at the time, as well as the high commission in India, but the circumstances have changed. Mrs. Bedi is being held in prison. The police authorities have said that they can find nothing against her. Do they release her? Not on your life, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They have passed the facts to the intelligence agency so that the agency can take up the case. It is strange that Mr. Buta Singh, the man who is so keen on gifts before he does anything, is the very person who is in charge of the police and who arranged for Mrs. Bedi to be arrested and have the case passed on to the intelligence agency.
The Indian Government's behaviour is nothing short of appalling. It should be understood to be that and put on the public record. That is the reason why I have raised the case today. I want our Foreign Office to take a high profile. We know how important diplomacy is, and we also know the failures of diplomacy, but sometimes it demands that this country stands up for its subjects, no matter where they are and where they are being abused. It is not good enough to whisper in the corridors of power, "Don't worry. Things will work out all right if we play a 1509 low profile. Don't forget, Mr. Dicks, when you speak about your constituent, we have to concern ourselves with Anglo-Indian relations."
Mr. Bedi has the support of Asians throughout the community—not just Sikhs. The whole Asian community is watching what is happening. A strange turn of events is that Asians are saying, "Is it because Mrs. Bedi happens to be Asian that things are not being done on her behalf by our Foreign Office?" I have my suspicions about why things are not happening. I have a firmly held belief that the Indian Government want the case to die quietly, and if they do, so does our Foreign Office. I could believe that some progress was being made were Mrs. Bedi still being questioned and free to move around Delhi, but now she has been arrested. She is in a state of mental torture, if nothing else. Yet, after the police said that there was no evidence on which they could charge her so far, she has now been passed over to the security forces.
What will our Foreign Office do about that? Will it just sit back and let that lady languish in a cell? In the previous debate we heard about the needs of the homeless at Christmas time. What about the needs of Mrs. Bedi? I know that she is not a Christian, but her family living in this country enjoys Christmas as Christians do. While we are celebrating, that lady is likely to be languishing in a prison in India because of a corrupt Government. I say that advisedly. The legal advice that I received out there was that that lady and others there can be locked away pending police inquiries for 10, 15, or 20 years. The deputy commissioner told my constituent's lawyer out there, "You should feel yourself lucky that I happened to look at her case twice in a fortnight. I have some cases on my desk that I do not look at for as long as six months." Between the police examining those cases and saying, "Shall we question somebody else?" the people involved are left in prison cells or kept under house arrest. Is that the way in which the biggest democracy in the world should operate? I do not believe so.
I want our Foreign Office to take action and to adopt a high profile. I want it to be said, almost at Prime Ministerial level, that British citizens will not be treated in that way, as happened with Iran. We ought not to go crawling to the Indian Government, who do not know how to behave in a humanitarian way. The next time the Indian Prime Minister starts lecturing this country on our foreign policy towards South Africa or anywhere else, he should remember the British adage, "People in glass houses should not throw stones."
§ 11.19am
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) for the well-being of his constituent and for the distress suffered by her family in the United Kingdom. I pass on to my hon. Friend the apologies of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who is away on Foreign Office business. That is why I am present this morning in his stead. However, we have spoken to my hon. Friend the Minister on the telephone and he was made aware of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington was likely to say this morning. I have taken specific advice.
I greatly regret some of the language that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has seen fit to use in referring to the Indian Government and the legal 1510 processes in that Commonwealth country. I firmly reject his suggestion that this Government or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are unsympathetic to the welfare of their citizens abroad, or of the hard-working Sikh community in the United Kingdom, which contributes a great deal in its areas.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend has made some unpleasant and unjustified remarks about members of the diplomatic service this morning. In all my inquiries into this case, I cannot fault those members for having tried to help as best they can under the circumstances. I think that we must face what has happened by considering the facts I am sure that that is exactly what my hon. Friend would wish, even though his information has led him down a path which I cannot follow.
My hon. Friend knows, as he described—and I have the papers containing the dates before me—that Mrs. Kaur was formally charged on 6 November 1986 under two sections of the Indian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985. That is the law of India. Her case must be heard by the Indian courts, but it has yet to be heard. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, when such a case is before the court of a land, the circumstances make it very difficult for me to comment on the substance of the case.
We do not know the specific details of the charges beyond the formal statement to which I have already referred. Mrs. Kaur's case has been handled in a manner which is fully in accordance with the legal procedures of the Republic of India. They may not be exactly the same as ours, but we cannot enforce our system on the Indian Government. They have their system. There is legal provision for the police to prevent departure from the country of people whom they wish to question in connection with possible criminal charges. That is a provision within Indian law.
Mrs. Kaur was free to move within Delhi while holding herself ready for questioning. Charges were laid against her on 6 November. By the order of the chief metropolitan magistrate, she was remanded in police custody until 12 November. On 10 November the magistrate gave permission for our consul to visit Mrs. Kaur. On 12 November the magistrate ruled against the police application for an extension of police remand and directed that Mrs. Kaur be remanded in judicial custody.
According to the Indian code of criminal procedure, the accused must be produced at not more than 15–day intervals before a magistrate who can then remand the accused for a maximum of 60 days. Mrs. Kaur was remanded on 27 November and 6 December.
Legal proceedings are, as my hon. Friend will know, normally the preserve of state Governments. Under the Indian Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act the central Government may, after consultation with the state Government, directly exercise all the powers conferred by the Act. We do not know why the central authorities have taken over Mrs. Kaur's case. We cannot therefore confirm press speculation that this relates to the nature of the evidence against her. Had I other information for my hon. Friend, I would give it to him. However, I simply do not have any.
Visits by consular staff to Mrs. Kaur have occurred on several occasions. My hon. Friend will know that The rights of access due under the Vienna convention on consular relations, of which both we and India are signatories, have been granted. I also understand that 1511 hearings for Mrs. Kaur's application for bail have been postponed several times. Two of the postponements were for legal reasons and, on one occasion, there was a strike throughout Delhi, which made a hearing impossible. However, on three occasions the postponement was at the request of Mrs. Kaur's lawyer, Mr. Jethmalani, who works out of Bombay. Those dates on which the hearings of bail were adjourned at the request of Mrs. Kaur's lawyer were 17, 26 and 28 November.
Although I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend and of Professor Bedi, the criticisms of the slow handling of the case are unfounded. I do not believe that under the legal system operating in India matters could have progressed faster given that there have been three adjournments at the request of Mrs. Kaur's lawyers.
I want to bring the House up to date with the latest legal position. The hearing on Mrs. Kaur's bail application was held on 17 December. Having heard it, the special magistrate reserved his position until today. We have no information at the moment as we have yet to hear his ruling. However, under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1985, the court can remand cases at 60-day intervals up to one year before trial. That is the law in India.
Hon. Members will understand from my account that we have sought to give Mrs Kaur, as a United Kingdom citizen, all the normal consular assistance in India. The high commission was in constant touch with her from the moment in mid-October—the night of 17 October—when she was prevented from leaving India until she was formally arrested and charged three weeks later. Since then she has been visited regularly by consular staff. I assure my hon. Friend that the high commission is continuing to monitor Mrs. Kaur's case, just as it monitors those cases of other British nationals detained in India regardless of colour or creed. I must refute my hon. Friend's comments with regard to Mrs. Kaur's Indian origin. She is a British citizen and she is being treated as such by our high commission.
It might be helpful if I made a few general comments about consular assistance abroad. Last year we produced a most useful booklet explaining what our consuls abroad can and cannot do for British nationals in trouble. Any British national living, working or travelling abroad is subject to the laws of that country. Our consuls cannot intervene in the due process of law in another country. If British nationals are detained our consul will visit them, ensure that they know their rights under local laws, tell them how to obtain legal representation and ensure that they are not discriminated against by reason of their foreign nationality.
It might be informative for the House to know that so far this year 2,106 arrests have been notified to us by our posts overseas, and that at any one time we reckon to have approximately 1,300 British nationals in prison abroad. That is the background. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington believes that this case is different. Quite honestly, publicity does not always pay off. We have been accused this morning—as we are accused sometimes in other cases—of doing nothing. We very often find that a low-key approach has resolved a problem when public acrimony has only aggravated it. I am concerned that we should use words with great care in this case and be extremely judicious in the way in which 1512 we deal with sensitive matters concerning the freedom of a British citizen held in India. Before making any intemperate statement, it is worth reflecting very hard as to whether it will help or damage her position. The legal process must be used and we have sought to ensure that that is the case.
Any suggestion that Mrs. Kaur may have been discriminated against on racial grounds is for the Indian Government to answer, but in our experience of cases in India over a long period there are no grounds for believing that to he true. My hon. Friend's comments about the resources spent helping hundreds of thousands of Indians through our aid programme were unworthy of him. That help goes to many poor and needy people in India and we have a responsibility in that respect.
Referring to his visit to India, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made some comments about Indian Ministers similar to those that he made in New Delhi. I must tell him that his comments have, indeed, caused grave offence within the Indian Government. As I was not present. I do not know the meaning intended by the words that were used. It is possible that there was a total misunderstanding.
§ Mrs. ChalkerI well know, however, that such comments will not help the cause of my hon. Friend's constituent or of the hundreds of thousands of moderate Sikhs in Britain. That is why I say this, with great regret, to my hon. Friend: how does he think that we would react if an Indian Member of Parliament came to London and referred to British Ministers in similar terms? I believe that there would be as much anger in this House as there has been in India.
§ Mr. DicksI did not create the situation. The suggestion that I mentioned came from the other party and it is unfair to suggest that I might have misunderstood. I did not misunderstand. I am sure that no Indian Member of Parliament visiting my hon. Friend the Minister or my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in this country would find himself in that kind of embarrassment.
§ Mrs. ChalkerI note my hon. Friend's comments.
When the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex, visited India last week the visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington was a matter for discussion. I should make it absolutely clear, however, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State went to New Delhi for talks on a wide range of issues related to the battle against terrorism and Sikh extremism—we all know that some exists—including the possibility of an extradition treaty. My hon. Friend the Minister of State discussed the case of Mrs. Kaur very thoroughly with the high commission and was satisfied, as I have explained, that everything possible was being done to help her. It was not the purpose of the visit of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to raise consular cases. We ensure that the Indian Government are well aware of our consular interests at all times.
There are concerns among the Government of India that we should rightly note. My hon. Friend the Minister of State affirmed to the Indian Government the desire of the British Government to deal effectively with a problem that afflicts both our countries and he recalled the British Government's firm commitment to the territorial integrity 1513 and unity of India. Both Governments have strongly reiterated that the encouragement of violence and the stirring up of racial and religious prejudice have no place in our democratic countries. India has a serious problem with terrorism. As in the Community of Twelve, and now much more widely, it is agreed that we must all stand firmly against terrorism. There must be a strong cooperative effort. We know how difficult it is to deal with problems of terrorism and the Indian Government have great worries in this respect, so it is not surprising that they should seek to deal with them. We should in no way seek to undermine their efforts to combat terrorism.
That is why the case of Mrs. Kaur must remain within the Indian legal system. It must go through the full legal process and not be drawn out from it, because only in that way can the Indian judiciary continue to be independent. After all, it is based on a British system of law. In the case of any British citizen, Mrs. Kaur or anyone else, we seek to ensure that the person concerned is fully represented. Ministers within and outside the Foreign Office have taken a considerable interest in this case and we have listened carefully to everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said as well as to representations from Professor Bedi. The case has also been monitored closely in New Delhi and I cannot go along with the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington about the way in which the case is being handled. There are no grounds for political intervention. I very much hope that the case will be heard soon. Indeed, I hope that we shall hear from the magistrates later today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington suggested at one point that Mrs. Kaur might have been detained for political reasons. That is a very serious allegation. I am confident that truth and justice will prevail. We know that in addition to Mrs. Jaimalla, the junior lawyer, Professor Bedi has also employed Mr. Jethmalani, so Mrs. Kaur is well represented as the case comes to court.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also suggested that the Government in general and the Foreign Office in particular were overly concerned about Indo-British relations. Of course we should be concerned about the totality of our relations with India, but that is in no way incompatible with our active and proven concern for the well-being of all British citizens abroad and, indeed, the Sikh community in this country, which has a great contribution to make. With regard to tracing links between the member of the Sikh community concerned and her husband in relation to private letters between members of the Cabinet and Professor Bedi, I should point out that Cabinet members frequently write to people whom they know on the occasion of a wedding, especially when those people have been particularly active in seeking to help in this country, so I do not regard any of the comments that were made as particularly unusual or out of the ordinary.
I should like to make one further point about the visit of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington to New Delhi. In line with his other comments, he sought to cast doubt on whether the high commission was doing all that should be done in such a case.
§ Mr. DicksWith great respect, I praised the people out there for the efforts that they had made and told them personally how grateful I was for their help and kindness while I was there. That is clearly on record.
§ Mrs. ChalkerI am delighted to hear it. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend made comments about how we were dealing with the case. I should make it clear that the high commissioner, in seeking to deal with my hon. Friend as fairly and openly as possible, said that it was up to my hon. Friend whether to seek publicity but that there was a risk that the Indians, who are very sensitive to criticism, especially from the British, would act unhelpfully. He went on to say that before my hon. Friend's departure he would want to think carefully about the effect on Mrs. Kaur's prospects of a public personal attack by my hon. Friend on the Home Affairs Minister there. In our judgment, such an attack on a legal Minister by a British Member of Parliament would make those authorities close ranks and delay, rather than expedite, the decision. I understand that my hon. Friend and his constituents want a quick, thorough and just decision more than anything.
My hon. Friend made a charge against the Home Affairs Minister in India and sought to imply that the attitude towards Mrs. Kaur may have changed after Professor Bedi was elected to the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. I cannot answer for the attitudes or actions of the Government of India. There are unexplained aspects of the case, but I cannot say that the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society has all the influence that my hon. Friend seems to think it has.
My hon. Friend suggested that Mrs. Kaur's detention and charge under the Act may in some way be bound up with the affairs of the Anglo-Asian Conservative Society. My hon. Friend will well appreciate that such party matters are not for the Foreign Office to delve into. As a member of my party of nearly 30 years' standing, I have made inquiries, particularly of the national union—the voluntary side of the party—on which I served for many years before coming to this House, to find out what is going on. I understand that it is meeting this morning. If this debate had not been held, I am sure that Professor Bedi would have been at that meeting because he is certainly entitled to attend it and give his view.
Those matters are not for the House. My hon. Friend should make his representations to the chairman of the Conservative party and the chairman of the national union in whose area these decisions lie. I cannot answer for them here, but my hon. Friend's words, which will be recounted widely, are for those people, not for me.
My hon. Friend sought to imply that I could answer for the Government of India in respect of any linkage, but I cannot do that. He seemed to say that only Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers are concerned about the need for good relations between Britain and India, but he is wrong. All Government Ministers share those concerns. India is an important place in the world. It has its own democracy and works under its own laws. We are not seeking to have a great row and misunderstanding. We want to ensure that Mrs. Kaur is taken fairly and justly through the processes of law in India. That is why his wish that this case should be treated differently from any other is not a sound way of proceeding.
I have already told my hon. Friend of the interest and concern of all Ministers in this particular case. However, all cases in other countries are not the same as Mrs. Bedi's. 1515 When there is a case, such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend in Iran, where there is no consular access and no charge at the time of protest, that is different. But in this case the charge was made, there is full consular access and, indeed, the point is different.
We shall continue to monitor the case of Mrs. Kaur. I am confident that the Government of India are well aware of the wish in the United Kingdom that all cases before Indian courts should be handled properly and in full accordance with local legal procedures. We shall not know the full nature of the charges until the case comes to court. Naturally, we hope that that will be soon, that a fair trial will take place and that as a result of the efforts of Mrs. Kaur's lawyers everybody will be satisfied with the result of this lengthy and painful process which Professor Bedi and his wife have been going through. The greatest care is being taken over the case within Indian law.