Mrs. E. B Hutchinson (Hansard, 27 January 1987)

§ Mr. Bernard Conlan (Gateshead, East)

The matter that I wish to bring before the House may involve either total incompetence and uninterest by the Foreign Office or a complete and utter unconcern on the part of the Spanish Government for the basic rights of justice for people who visit Spain. It may be a combination of both those factors.

Mr. and Mrs. Hutchinson of Gateshead, constituents of mine, were holidaying in Malaga at the beginning of 1983. On 26 March, they were involved, as pedestrians, in a road accident in which Mrs. Hutchinson died, and Mr. Hutchinson received serious injuries. Mr. Hutchinson suffered damage so severe that he could not recall anything about the circumstances of the accident. Mrs. Hutchinson's body was returned to Tyneside for the funeral.

Subsequently, solicitors were consulted by Mr. Hutchinson, and a Spanish lawyer was obtained to represent the family's interest at any court proceedings. Whether there have been any court proceedings is not known. There has been complete silence from the Spanish authorities, and no information can be obtained.

The number two magistrates' court in Marbella, which appears to have responsibility for proceedings arising out of the accident, adamantly refuses to release police reports or any other information relating to the case. Yet Mr. Hutchinson has a clear, unimpeachable case against the driver of the vehicle if culpability can be shown. In addition, the coroner at Gateshead has a statutory duty, even though death occurred overseas, to conduct an inquest into the cause of death.

Both Mr. Hutchinson and the coroner have been denied all appropriate information, and that information must be in the hands of the court in Marbella. The pretence is that there may be a criminal proceeding still pending". Criminal proceedings pending after four years?

Her Majesty's consul in Malaga has tried, all this time, to obtain the information that is required; and I pay the highest tribute to him for his work. However, he has been unable to get access to the documentation on the case. The consul has done his very best, but he has constantly come up against a wall of silence.

The Foreign Office has been involved for a long time in correspondence with the solicitors who act for Mr. Hutchinson, the coroner and myself. Indeed, the coroner has displayed a degree of patience and endurance the like of which he should not be expected to bear.

The Spanish judicial system prevents the imparting of information even in cases where individual injustice is at stake. I have mentioned the efforts of our consul in Malaga and also mentioned the involvement of the Foreign Office, but that is not all. I am sure that the House will be interested to learn that no less an august body than the International Police organisation — commonly known as Interpol—has also been involved but again with the same result—no information.

Recently, I approached the Spanish ambassador in London and I asked if he could do anything to break the conspiracy of silence. The ambassador, in a most polite and courteous reply, said: 311 in Spain the Judiciary is wholly independent of the Executive, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to request the Court to do something which under Spanish law is inappropriate. I can fully understand and appreciate the delicate balance between the courts and Government, but I cannot understand the fantasy of the denial of justice.

The millions of British people who are delighted to take their annual holiday in Spain may wish to consider the risks they are obviously taking should a Hutchinson type tragedy occur. Although most sensible people take out holiday insurance, I wonder if the insurance companies here would pay out in the absence of information on the cause of accident or death. My guess is that they would not. Therefore, the insurance premiums that holidaymakers are paying are a waste of money.

Spain is a full partner of this country in NATO and the EEC. What a partner?

As I have already made clear, the consul in Malaga has done his utmost to unravel this sorry mess. The same cannot be said for the Foreign Office. Why has the Foreign Office not taken the initiative to raise the issue at a level higher than the consul? Why has the British ambassador in Madrid not been asked to lend his weight? Why should it be necessary for a matter such as this to be raised in the House of Commons? Those questions need to be addressed. I hope sincerely that the incident involving the death of Mr. Hutchinson's wife, which has haunted him for four years, is not simply small fry in the complicated rounds of international diplomacy.

I want to say to the Under-Secretary of State that the effective representation of this country overseas means the full protection of millions of British people during the time they are out of the country. It means ensuring and protecting the rights, liberties and privileges of our people who are overseas for whatever reason. Above all, it means ensuring that justice is obtained.

The Hutchinson family has been decimated by the tragic events of 1983. It is time that their worries, concerns and anxieties were brought to an end.

With the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary of State, who I know is responsible for the consular service, I believe that this matter should be dealt with by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He should take up the issue of the lack of information regarding the tragedy that has befallen the Hutchinson family with his opposite number in Madrid.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) for raising this sad case and for drawing the House's attention to the delays that occurred in the attempts to find out the circumstances in which Mrs. Hutchinson so tragically died. I should like to express my sympathy to her family not only for their sad loss but for the anguish and uncertainty to which the delays must have given rise.

Let me immediately put it on the record that I do not accept the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has made of the role that the Foreign Office has played centrally in London, although I am grateful to him for the kind remarks that he made about our consul in Malaga, whom 312 I met in June when I was in Spain; he has been our consul there for a number of years and has carried out his job extremely conscientiously.

I ask the hon. Member to bear with me while I go through the chronology as it appears to us. Our consulate in Malaga was first asked in July 1983 by Her Majesty's coroner for Gateshead to request from the court at Marbella copies of the accident report and other relevant information. The consul wrote to the court and the court replied that it could not meet the consul's request, as the passing of copies of their proceedings was expressly forbidden by Spanish law. The coroner was informed of that on 22 July 1983 and advised to make inquiries through Interpol. That advice had already been given to the coroner by the consular department of the Foreign Office in London.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the coroner also received a negative report from Interpol, which stated that the Spanish court would not divulge information unless it was requested through a rogatory commission, which is also known as a letter of request, and stating also that the rogatory commission would normally be sent through diplomatic channels.

In January 1984, in response to the information from Interpol, the coroner consulted the Foreign Office about the procedures for a letter of request. On 27 January 1984, he was advised to consult the Master's secretary's department of the Royal Courts of Justice. That is the usual channel through which letters of request reach us for onward transmission to the appropriate authorities in foreign countries. In other words, that is the normal procedure that is followed.

The hon. Gentleman wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)—the then Under-Secretary of State—on 23 February 1984 about the case and expressed his concern about the lack of information. My hon. Friend replied on 12 March 1984 and repeated the advice that the coroner should consult the Master's secretary's department. That advice was again repeated in the reply of my noble Friend the Baroness Young on 23 September 1986. It was not until 8 January 1987 that we learned that the Master's secretary's department had been unable to assist the coroner, for what I understand were technical legal reasons.

Meanwhile, as a result of a further letter from the coroner, the consul in Malaga approached the court in Marbella again, in January 1985. The consul was informed that proceedings against the driver of the car involved had not yet been completed and that the papers were with the public prosecutor's office in Malaga. No date for a hearing had been fixed. The court again confirmed to our consul that it was not permitted to reveal the contents of the proccedings.

That information was passed both to the coroner and to the Hutchinson family's solicitors. The consulate repeated its advice to the solicitors — which had previously been given in April 1983—that a local lawyer be instructed to protect their client's interests.

At the request of the coroner, the consul approached the court again in August 1985. The result was the same again. The reply was that no date had been fixed for a hearing, and no information about the case could be given to the consul since the local lawyer acting for the family was fully aware of the position. However, the Spanish court was either unwilling or unable even to provide the name of the local lawyer to which it had referred.

313 As a last resort, we have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, agreed that the coroner may submit a letter of request direct to the nationality and treaty department of the Foreign Office for onward transmission to the Spanish authorities. That is, in other words, as an alternative to going through the Master's secretary. But we have to say again that there is no guarantee that the Spanish court will accept a letter of request which is submitted in that rather unorthodox way. The truth is that we are unable to force the Spanish court to provide us with the information which the hon. Gentleman and his constituents require.

Let me turn for a moment from the particular case which the hon. Gentleman raised to the general. This problem of getting documents from Spanish courts is, of course, tragic, but this instance is far from being an isolated one. I frequently write to hon. Members on both sides of the House having to give a similar message. The diffculty of obtaining information from Spanish courts is of long standing.

If the local police make inquiries into an accident, a theft or some other incident, their reports are passed to the appropriate court and become part of that court's documents. Those documents are, under Spanish law, confidential to the court, and while interested parties and their legal representatives may apply for access, but not for copies, that ability to obtain access is specifically not extended to consuls. It is for that reason that we have consistently advised the hon. Gentleman's constituents' solicitors to engage local Spanish lawyers.

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with the Spanish ambassador about this case since the coroner sent to our consul in Malaga a copy of the Spanish ambassador's letter of 3 December 1986 to the hon. Gentleman. In that the ambassador made it clear, as the hon. Gentleman stated, that the confidentiality, even secrecy, of the summary of evidence held by a Spanish court is the key to the way in which the Spanish legal system operates.

In that letter, the ambassador also referred to article 23 of the Anglo-Spanish consular convention of 1961, under which British consuls in Spain have the right to approach all Spanish authorities, including the judiciary. It was by virtue of that specific article that the consul was able to make the various approaches to the court which I have already outlined. Nevertheless, as the ambassador made clear, the Spanish judiciary is wholly independent of the Executive, as, it is in Britain. As a result, Spanish courts, in accordance with their properly constituted rules, almost invariably refuse, in my experience and that of our consuls, to make court documents available to consuls. That is the position.

When British visitors abroad find themselves in difficulties, it is local law and procedures which must apply. Therefore, I cannot repeat my advice too strongly of the advisibility of appointing a local lawyer to protect the interests of British citizens when they have difficulties in Spain. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, our consul can provide lists of suitable lawyers, but consuls are not legal officers and it is not part of their function to offer legal advice; nor can they represent British nationals in court. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that, but there is sometimes misunderstanding on that point outside the House.

The hon. Gentleman understandably asked that the general position that I have described and about which he has expressed concern should be raised by my right hon. 314 and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am delighted to advise the hon. Member that, although the specific case of his constituent was not raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, he did raise with the Spanish Foreign Minister when they met in London a few days ago the problems that we were having in Spain.

In addition, six months ago I made a week-long visit to Spain and had extensive discussions not only with our consuls, including our consul in Malaga, but also with the Spanish authorities in Madrid on consular matters generally. I did not raise specific cases, but I discussed the general problem that we are having in getting speedy resolutions of cases before the Spanish courts involving British citizens.

I must advise the hon. Gentleman that the Spanish feel as strongly as we do about the division of responsibility between the Executive and the judiciary. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of the reaction that would ensue in this country if the Spanish ambassador, or any other embassy, sought to put pressure on the English judiciary to resolve a matter other than through the normal course of events. We should rightly regard that as intolerable, and we must take account of that factor when we make representations to the Spanish authorities.

I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that I expect to see His Excellency the Spanish ambassador within the next few days and I shall raise several consular cases with him, specifically and in general, to try to improve the ways in which we can effect a good liaison between the Foreign Office and the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to see if there is anything that we can do to unblock delays and increase the speed with which such cases can be processed.

I should like to explain briefly what consuls can and cannot do. Consuls can issue emergency passports. They can contact relatives and friends and ask them to help with money and tickets. They can advise people on how to transfer funds. In an emergency, they can advance money against a sterling cheque for up to £50, provided that the cheque is supported by a banker's card. From 1 January this year, under new regulations, they can, in exceptional circumstances, make an advance of £20 against a signed undertaking to repay, to travellers who have no funds to get to an airport for a departure in the next few hours.

They can, as a last resort, and in exceptional circumstances, make a repayable loan for repatriation to the United Kingdom, but there is no law that says that consuls must do this, and they will need to be satisfied that there is absolutely no one else a traveller knows who can help with funding. They can provide lists of lawyers, interpreters and doctors. They can arrange for next of kin to be informed of an accident or death and advise on procedures. They can contact British nationals who are arrested or in prison and, in certain circumstances, can arrange for messages to be sent to relatives or friends. They can give some guidance on organisations that are experienced in tracing missing persons.

There are a number of things which consuls cannot do. They cannot pay hotel, medical or any other bills. They cannot pay for travel tickets except in exceptional circumstances. They cannot undertake work that is more properly done by travel representatives, airlines, banks or motoring organisations. They cannot get better treatment for British nationals in hospital or in prison than is provided for local nationals. As I have already mentioned, 315 they cannot give legal advice, nor can they instigate court proceedings on behalf of British nationals or interfere in local judicial procedures to get them out of prison.

Consuls cannot investigate a crime or conduct any other kind of investigation which is the preserve of the competent local authorities. They cannot formally assist dual nationals in the country of their second nationality. They cannot obtain work or work permits for British nationals. I say that, because there is some misunderstanding of the activities that consuls can undertake.

I should also like to say something about publicity in consular cases. Publicity in a particular case is a matter of judgment, and one for consultation with individuals or interested parties, often tempered by the advice of their local lawyers. Individuals may not always be aware of the effect that publicity may have on a case, or of any local nuances which may be read into it.

316 Members of the public are, of course, quite free to air their views in the media, but they would be well advised to consider what the effect might be. We are, naturally, concerned that all avenues should be considered and pursued as appropriate, but the ultimate decision on publicity must be, and always is, for the individuals concerned. Once they have made a decision about whether to pursue publicity, it is highly desirable, and reasonable for us to expect, that they should be prepared to acknowledge the decision that they have taken.

We recognise that the case to which the hon. Member has drawn the House's attention is extremely distressing. We understand the sense of frustration that he and the family must feel. I assure him that we will continue to do all that we properly can to assist his constituents, but, as I have already explained, what we properly can do is very limited.