§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
8.59 pm§ Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)I am extremely grateful to Madam Speaker for choosing this subject for the Adjournment debate.
I rise to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Allan Nicklin, with a mixture of regret, frustration and anger: regret because what I say might conceivably strain relations between two friendly nations—this country and Saudi Arabia; frustration because, after 18 months of almost ceaseless work on behalf of my constituent, I have had to take the step of having an Adjournment debate on the subject; but most of all anger that Allan Nicklin has been treated so abominably merely because he had the misfortune to work for a company that turned out to be of dubious repute.
Allan Nicklin, who is a Wolverhampton boy, educated at the grammar school, went into insurance after he left school. He qualified in the profession and has spent 30 years in various managerial positions. About half that time has been spent in the middle east, an area of the world to which he is passionately attached. Prior to the last job that he held in Saudi Arabia, he had done two tours in that country, to which he is also very attached.
In 1988, Allan Nicklin was appointed general manager of Western Agencies, an insurance company based in the United States, with responsibility for three offices in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To him this was a job of challenge and promise, and he and his family relished the opportunity. They were in a part of the world that they all liked, in a country to which they had become attached. He felt that he would be able to do a good job in his chosen profession.
Unfortunately, it did not work out quite that way. It soon became clear to Allan Nicklin that the company was not quite what he thought. There was slow payment of repair accounts for Saudi companies and towards the end of 1989 claims were being pressed. Throughout that time Mr. Nicklin made strenuous efforts to ensure that everything was done properly. By March 1990, however, he was advised that he had better not apply for an exit visa because he would not have a chance to leave the kingdom if he did. By July of that year, he was in prison, held responsible for the alleged debts of the company of which he was an employee. His wife made constant intercessions on his behalf. She took his food to gaol and she presented herself at office after office and worked tirelessly to ensure that her husband was released. She sought to ensure that it was recognised that he was not in any way responsible, so that he would be allowed to try to sort things out.
At the end of November 1990, he was released from prison, but the case dragged on. At that stage, Mr. Nicklin looked upon this as a commercial and personal matter. Although the British authorities were aware in general terms of what was going on, Mr. Nicklin did not seek their active involvement or their help. He felt that it was a matter which he must sort out with the company for which he worked, and that was what he tried to do.
By July 1991 he was told by the Saudi civil rights department that if he did not personally pay up he would go to gaol. It was at that stage, the middle of last year, that he asked for as much help as possible from the British 1079 consul and sought, through his wife, my help and intervention as his local Member of Parliament. He did not wish his predicament to become public knowledge or property. He was conscious of the fact that Britain and Saudi Arabia enjoyed close and cordial relations. He had spent much of his working life seeking to strengthen in his own way those close and cordial relations. If we look back to midsummer last year, we had just gone through the Gulf war, in which those close and cordial relations had been demonstrated in a particular way.
Alas, all Mr. Nicklin's hopes and aspirations seemed to count for very little. On 6 November last year, the threat that had been uttered in July was carried out and he found himself in gaol. This was no mere arrest and detention. He was imprisoned in a cell 10 m by 5 m. There were 24 other people in that cell at all times, and 28 for some days. He was in the company of murderers and other criminals of evil repute. He was not allowed to wash. He was not allowed exercise. His wife, when she visited him, was subjected to body searches and had to sit in a dusty courtyard with crowds of other women, waiting to see her husband.
Allan Nicklin was detained in those conditions until 21 January this year, in spite of the best efforts of the ambassador and the consul, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and myself. And still Mr. Nicklin did not wish his predicament, his troubles, to be made public. Obviously, I was in constant touch with his wife, and the House can imagine her distress and anguish when she returned to this country before Christmas last year.
Soon after his release, the Saudi authorities admitted that Mr. Nicklin was indeed not personally liable for any debts; that there was no suggestion that at any time had he been guilty of any impropriety at all. This is not a British subject suspected of a criminal act. This case is not to be equated with the cases of drugs traffickers and those other cases about which one reads from time to time in which British subjects, sadly, contravene local laws, behave in a criminal manner and then, of course, must take the consequences. Here was a man who had sought to do nothing but follow his profession properly, and honourably discharge his business responsibilities, but all this to no avail.
Although it is not done to name officials, I will name one official here—the private secretary of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, Mr. Charles Moore, who has been exemplary in the way he has sought to help and has handled this case and kept in constant touch with me. But in spite of all our efforts, in July of this year, what happened? I got a call from Mr. Moore one Friday to say that I could expect Mr. Nicklin to be flying in within two or three days. That was just as we were about to rise for the summer recess. My last conversation in July with the Minister gave hope that I would be able to greet Mr. Nicklin at Heathrow or at his home in the constituency conveying the good wishes of everyone concerned.
In the event, nothing happened. Papers had been passed from one office to another and from one Department to another. Since those days in July, much effort has continued to be put in. My hon. Friend who will answer this debate has been constantly helpful in the matter. The Foreign Secretary has raised the issue with his opposite number, the Secretary of State for Defence has raised it at 1080 high level and with his opposite number and the Prime Minister, with whom I have been in correspondence, has expressed concern and frustration.
Indeed, as a result of a letter from the Prime Minister in which he said he saw no reason why I should not make the matter public, I talked to Mr. Nicklin and we decided that, at long last, the issue had to come into the open. It is a tribute to Mr. Nicklin and his wife that for all those long, dark, difficult months, they put the interests of this country and its relations with another country before their personal comfort and convenience.
As I say, despite the totally genuine expressions of concern by the Minister who has had day-to-day charge of the case, by the Foreign Secretary, by the Secretary of State for Defence and by the Prime Minister, Mr. Nicklin remains without a passport and without permission to leave.
This has been a cat-and-mouse game. Mr. Nicklin is being treated virtually as a hostage, and the situation is unacceptable. It is utterly unacceptable to Mr. Nicklin and his family and to their Member of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will demonstrate when he replies that it is equally unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
This is a country with which, we all agree, we wish to have close relations, yet a British subject is being treated by that country in the way that I have described. It was out of sheer desperation that we decided—I spoke to Mr. Nicklin on the telephone from Saudi Arabia and I had numerous conversations with his wife, who comes regularly to see me and visits my office in the constituency virtually every day—that we could not allow the matter to go on without people knowing about it.
Mr. Nicklin has not left Saudi Arabia for three and a half years. He has not been allowed to leave for two and a half years. He has not seen his daughter for two years, and during that time she celebrated her 21st birthday and graduated. He has missed all of the sort of family occasions that he should have had the right to attend.
His son had to leave his independent school because the fees could no longer be paid. I managed to persuade the headmaster and governors to let him take his GCSEs, but then he had to leave. Mr. Nicklin has not seen his son for almost two years. The last time he saw his wife was when she visited him about a year ago in the intolerable conditions in prison to which I referred.
Friends have helped to sustain Mr. Nicklin, and his wife has been marvellous in her support. But the strain on the family has been intolerable. Mr. Nicklin has no job and is without money. He has not been paid for over two years. It is clear from recent telegrams that the company for which he was working has almost certainly been guilty of criminal acts, but that is not his fault. In the United States, certain people are having to answer questions, but I will not digress and go into that now. Mr. Nicklin's reputation is such that other companies have been wanting to offer him employment. He has been unable to attend interviews, still less to contemplate taking up a job, because he has no passport and does not have permission to leave. He is entirely dependent on friends to feed and look after him.
Although I do not want to over-emphasise my role as his Member of Parliament, had it not been for my intervention with all the statutory authorities who supply electricity, gas and so on, his family would have been in dire straits. I pay tribute to those to whom mortgage payments are owed, to British Telecom, British Gas and 1081 the local council for being extremely understanding and anxious to help. The position is desperate and that man remains in detention.
We have moved a long way since 1850 and the days of Don Pacifico when Palmerston sent in the gunboats and later spent four hours addressing this honourable House to justify his conduct, making the greatest speech of his life. I do not necessarily invite my hon. Friend the Minister to emulate that but I stress that the position is unacceptable. I know that he and his colleagues in the Foreign Office have done all that they possibly could but it is terrible when, in spite of the constant entreaties of a friendly power, a nation refuses to allow a man against whom no charges are preferred or contemplated to return to his home and family.
I tabled a question a few weeks ago asking my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to summon the ambassador. My right hon. Friend replied that the ambassador was trying to be helpful and that he did not feel that that was the right moment to summon him. I do not criticise the Saudi ambassador in this country and am sure that he has tried to be helpful. However, all those good intentions and genuine efforts have not produced Mr. Nicklin at Heathrow airport and have not allowed him to rejoin his family.
The last thing that I wish to do is jeopardise relations between Britain and any friendly country. Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend tell my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in stark, unequivocal terms that such treatment of a British subject is utterly unacceptable and that the Saudi ambassador must be told that in no uncertain terms? Mr. Nicklin must be allowed to have his passport, return to his country and be reunited with his wife, son and daughter well before Christmas so that they can have a family time together. The family can then begin to unravel the manifold problems, financial and otherwise, that have encompassed and enmeshed them in the past two and a half years, particularly the past difficult year since he was imprisoned in those atrocious conditions in November 1991.
I hope that my hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for the time that he has given to this case, will be able to give me a reassuringly robust answer tonight. I appeal through the House and beyond the House to the Government to say to his Majesty the King of Saudi Arabia that, if he cherishes his relationship with Great Britain and truly believes what he said on his state visit to this country and during the Gulf war—I have no reason to doubt it—he should show that he repudiates the prevarication of his officials and that he will allow Mr. Nicklin to come back quickly.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd)I fully understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has brought this important matter to the attention of the House. I shall be speaking to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the subject following tonight's debate. A copy of the text of the debate will be sent to our mission in Riyadh for 1082 transmission to the appropriate authorities, and a copy will be made available to the Saudi Arabian ambassador in London.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said, the story starts on 12 August 1990, when our consulate in Jedda was informed of Mr. Nicklin's arrest for debts incurred by Western Agencies Ltd., often known as WAL (Jedda)—the company for which he was general manager. As a result of representations made by our embassy in Riyadh, Mr. Nicklin was released for the first time from prison on 26 November 1990, two years ago to this month. But he was not free to leave Saudi Arabia then or now.
Mr. Nicklin was initially given three months to settle the debts, and that period was extended to one year. He was unable to raise the money to pay the debts and, on 6 November 1991 he was rearrested. He was released into the custody of his sponsor, Prince Mishaal, on 21 January this year.
Some 22 representations have been made to the Saudi Arabian authorities about the case by Ministers, consulate officials, myself and others during the past 12 months. Although, after Mr. Nicklin's arrest in January of this year, he was subsequently cleared of liability for all debts, he has not been allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. His case is now before the Council of Ministers, and we hope for an early and favourable decision that will enable him to return to his family in Britain.
Under Saudi Arabian law, the senior representative of a company is liable for its debts and, until the debts are paid, he may be imprisoned. We have taken the view that Mr. Nicklin was an employee, not an executive, of WAL (Jedda), which was a subsidiary of the parent company based in Cyprus. WAL, a Cyprus-based company owned by two British nationals, Mr. Clive Lewis and Mr. Vincent Deacon, began operating in Jedda under the sponsorship of Prince Mishaal bin Saud bin Abdul Aziz on 27 March 1984. Mr. Nicklin arrived in Jedda in May 1988 to take up an appointment as general manager of WAL (Jedda). On I I August 1990, he was arrested and imprisoned for the local company's failure to pay claims to SASCO and Abbar company, both Saudi Arabian companies.
During 1988 and 1989, numerous claims were made on WAL (Jedda) by both Saudi nationals and companies in respect of material damage, by fire and other events, which the company was unable to make good because the United States underwriters defaulted. The claims, amounting to about .600,000, were underwritten by the United States companies Wilmington Marine and General Insurance company and American Marine and General Insurance company. Mr. Nicklin holds that all correspondence and dealings with the American insurers were conducted by WAL (Cyprus). One of the two major shareholders of WAL (Cyprus) admitted in a letter, dated 26 September 1990, that he and the other shareholder, as directors of the Saudi firm, were responsible for the debts of WAL (Jedda) and that Mr. Nicklin should not be held liable.
In December 1991, during an official visit to Washington, I asked an official at the United States State Department to look into the status of the two United States insurance companies. After the State Department confirmed that neither company was under federal investigation, our missions in Houston and Atlanta tried to contact them direct.
We learned that American Marine and General, which may now be in liquidation, maintained that, since it had 1083 never received any premium on policies written by WAL (Jedda) and had never indeed written or authorised these policies, it did not consider itself liable for policies issued in its name. Mr. Nicklin disputes this, maintaining that premiums on policies issued up until the end of 1988, the period in question, were fully paid. Furthermore, he claims that virtually all policies issued by WAL in Saudi Arabia were signed by persons other than himself. Wilmington Marine and General, which was owned by a company now in liquidation, claimed that it was in the process of repaying its debt to WAL (Cyprus) by instalments, and that most of the money had already been repaid. The directors of WAL (Cyprus) claim that they have not received any payments.
I want to put all the facts on record, as I am sure that they will be considered by others at a later date.
In January 1992, the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), raised Mr. Nicklin's case with Prince Ahmed, the Saudi Vice-Minister of Interior. As a result, Mr. Nicklin was released into his sponsor's custody and the documentation was transferred from Jedda to Riyadh. Our embassy in Riyadh submitted a dossier on the case to the Interior Minister on 23 March.
In the meantime, our high commission in Nicosia had had a number of contacts with the two directors of WAL (Cyprus), the parent company, to try to bring home to them the seriousness of the position of their employee, Mr. Nicklin. Mr. Nicklin says that he has not received any financial assistance from them since mid-1991, although it has been made clear to them that both he and his wife, in the United Kingdom, are now destitute.
We have repeatedly raised Mr. Nicklin's case at a high level with the Saudis, and our embassy in Riyadh has been active in trying to secure his release. Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater raised the case in January 1992 with the Saudi Vice-Minister of Interior, a senior FCO official saw the chargé d'affaires of the Saudi embassy in London on 26 March. On 13 May, our ambassador in Saudi Arabia called on the Interior Ministry to express concern that the case had been transferred to the Ministry of Commerce. I raised the matter with the Saudi ambassador on 15 May, and the Foreign Secretary subsequently raised the case with the Saudi Minister of State, Mr. Masoud.
On 19 May, our ambassador in Riyadh called on the Saudi Minister of Commerce, who said that the case was complex and would require careful scrutiny. He added that Mr. Lewis's 1984 contract with Prince Mishaal to sell insurance had not received Ministry of Commerce endorsement. Our ambassador reiterated our view that, as an employee of the company, Mr. Nicklin could not be held liable for its debts.
Subsequently, we learned that the Ministry of Commerce had informed the Ministry of Interior that it considered that Mr. Nicklin should not be responsible for any debts; the United States underwriters should be responsible for the larger debt of about £500,000: the smaller debts, made up, for example, of repairs to vehicles insured, should be the responsibility of Prince Mishaal. The embassy was informed that the Minister of Interior would write to Prince Mishaal asking him to take on these liabilities. Our ambassador wrote to Prince Saud on 7 July to brief him on developments in the case.
On 15 July, our consul in Riyadh accompanied Mr. Nicklin to a meeting with his sponsor, Prince Mishaal. The 1084 prince said that he had not yet received any communication from the Ministry of the Interior. However, as he had no claim against Mr. Nicklin personally, he said that he would not stand in the way of his leaving Saudi Arabia. On 22 July, the prince's manager in Jedda told our embassy that the prince had been informed of Prince Nail's wish to have the debt issue resolved. Although he intended to dispute his own liability for the debts, Prince Mishaal instructed his office manager to request an exit re-entry visa in Mr. Nicklin's passport to enable him to travel as soon as possible.
However, the immigration authorities in Jedda remained unprepared to remove Mr. Nicklin's name from their list of people forbidden to leave the kingdom. They said that they needed specific instructions from the Ministry of the Interior to remove his name from the list. On 28 July, a senior FCO official raised the problem with the Saudi ambassador, who said that he would see what he could do.
Repeated representations by our embassy in Riyadh and consulate-general in Jedda have not yet overcome this new obstacle. Our consul-general in Riyadh and Mr. Nicklin called on the deputy Minister of Commerce on 8 September, and were again told that the Ministry considered that Mr. Nicklin should not be held liable for any debts, which should be the responsibility of the underwriters and his sponsor.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence raised the case when he met His Royal Highness Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Minister of the Interior, during his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, on 20 September. The Minister told my right hon. and learned Friend that he agreed that Mr. Nicklin should not be held liable for the debts, and hoped that he would be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia very soon; however, he wished to have a final look at the papers.
Since then, the Interior Ministry has asked the Ministry of Commerce for further confirmation and clarification of its decision that Mr. Nicklin was not to be held liable for any debts. The Ministry of Commerce has, I understand, replied in the affirmative. As my hon. Friend knows, I spoke to the Saudi ambassador on 22 October, and followed that up with a letter enclosing a chronology showing how and when the Nicklin case had been discussed by British and Saudi Ministers and officials over the past six months.
On 1 November, our ambassador in Riyadh was told by senior officials in the Interior Ministry that, as Mr. Nicklin's debts were not personal, the way should very soon be clear to authorising his release. We have now been informed that Mr. Nicklin's case has been referred to the Council of Ministers for final approval. Our ambassador spoke about the issue to the Foreign Minister on 8 November. We cannot, of course, tell exactly when that final approval will be given; but we have been given to understand that we are really at the last hurdle, and that Mr. Nicklin could well be free to return home very shortly.
I know that this further delay will increase the distress to Mr. and Mrs. Nicklin, but I assure them, my hon. Friend and the House that we shall continue to do everything possible to secure Mr. Nicklin's unhindered departure from Saudi Arabia as soon as possible.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o' clock.