James Miles and Paul Loseby

HC Deb 09 July 1997 vol 297 cc1044-52

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

10.20 pm

Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise in Parliament the important case of the detention in Venezuela of two young people from my constituency. I welcome and am grateful for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents and their families, who are presently undergoing a great deal of suffering, anxiety and distress.

Anyone who doubts the significance of Adjournment debates should take heart from their effectiveness in prompting urgent action. Just five hours ago, my office was telephoned by the Foreign Office and given dramatic new information on the case, to which I shall refer shortly.

Some hon. Members will remember the media coverage of the detention of two men, James Miles, aged 18, of Hungerton boulevard, Leicester, and Paul Loseby, aged 20, of Greenwood road, Leicester, at Caracas airport on 4 November last year. That is how I first heard of the case. Somewhat alarmingly, Paul's mother, Mrs. Wendy Loseby, also heard of her son's arrest through a news bulletin rather than from official sources.

The young men were on their way back from a holiday when they were apprehended with 10 kg of cocaine strapped to their chests. James and Paul say that they were frightened and distraught. On international television they said that they were forced to carry the drugs after a man put a gun to their heads near a gate of the airport terminal. The two young men insist that they approached airport customs officers to tell them about the drugs and how they came to be on their person, but due to a misunderstanding resulting from the language barrier, they were arrested and have been detained ever since.

One can imagine the distress and trauma that the families of those young men have undergone during the past eight months. Steven and Georgina Miles and Graham and Wendy Loseby are respectable, ordinary, decent, hard-working people who have found themselves in a position totally beyond their comprehension. It is a nightmare for them. They have no access to large sums of money or experience of media attention. They were not prepared for, and never anticipated, facing a problem remotely of that proportion in this country, let alone on the other side of the world. The stress on the whole family arising from that unhappy situation cannot be quantified.

Today, in a dramatic and astonishing turn of events, my office received a call at 4 pm from Mr. Danny Woodyear in the Foreign Office, to be told that, on 2 July, James and Paul were sentenced to four years for possession of drugs, but not for trafficking.

On the face of it, that seems to be consistent with the version of events that they described. Neither the parents nor the Foreign Office were informed that that remarkable system of justice allowed for a sentence without a trial. We have not received confirmation that a trial took place with the defendants present.

I wonder what the Minister of State will make of those developments when he replies to the debate. We have been told that an appeal must be lodged, and that it will take two months to progress the appeal. None of that information was communicated to the parents until this afternoon.

The Mileses must find money each week for food for the young men. Whereas other inmates have families who bring food by hand into the prison, as is the custom in Venezuela, the Mileses and the Losebys are not in a position to do that, and must rely on expensive and not always reliable alternatives.

As one can imagine, the strain on resources and on the families' physical and mental health is tremendous. In addition, there is the far greater expense of fees for lawyers dealing with the case. Worse than all that is the uncertainty, the not knowing, and the waiting, day in, day out, to hear whether there has been any progress or development in the case. Unlike the practice in our system of justice, Paul and James did not have to return to court. Bizarrely, their parents were not even told that they had to face a trial.

Over the past eight months, I have been involved in campaigning—first, to get as much information as possible, and secondly, to have those young people brought to this country, for their own sake and for the sake of their families. I pay tribute tonight to Mr. and Mrs. Miles and Mr. and Mrs. Loseby, who have worked in a united and disciplined way. I also pay tribute to Charlotte Seebohm, Steve Evison and Bishop Bill, all of whom have been involved in the campaign.

Under the previous Government, I secured meetings with the then Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), and the Home Office Minister, the former Member for Leeds, North-East, to pursue various measures that might alleviate the young men's conditions and secure justice, and in particular on the issue of repatriation. Ironically, until the men are sentenced, they are not regarded as prisoners, and so cannot be repatriated.

I paid for Mr. Miles senior to visit Venezuela to see his son and his son's friend, to try to secure a lawyer and to meet officials there. A shocked Mr. Miles described his son's living conditions as a cell 30 ft by 30 ft—roughly the size of two sitting rooms—open to the air, with 73 people currently living in it. There is a hole in one corner for the toilet. Water is sometimes turned off, often for a week at a time.

Until Mr. Miles bought some sort of mattress, the young men were sleeping on a concrete floor. The place is infested with vermin and cockroaches. Paul and James are covered in flea and mosquito bites, have lice and have had scabies. There is a great deal of fighting in the cell. Paul and James have never had exposure to or experience of such hardships. One can scarcely imagine the physical and psychological effects of having to live in such an environment.

I have twice met the Venezuelan ambassador. On the second occasion, I was accompanied by both sets of parents. Much to our surprise, the ambassador arranged a telephone call to enable the parents to speak to the sons. The ambassador was extremely helpful, and seemed sympathetic to the idea of repatriation. However, further progress would require some general agreement of an internationally legally binding nature. In the case of Thailand, for example, such an agreement is already in place, and since 1991 has allowed for the repatriation to the United Kingdom of 30 prisoners, most of whom were involved in drugs-related offences.

Although the ambassador subsequently called on me at my office in the House, and although I do not doubt his sincerity or concern, that has not been reflected in the attitude, actions and deeds, or lack of them, by the legal system in Venezuela.

On 22 May 1997, I received answers from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who stated that the British Government had approached the Venezuelan Government about accession to the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, and are still awaiting the Venezuelans' reply.

Government policy is that, on humanitarian grounds, prisoners should be able to serve their sentences in their own countries. Venezuela is a highly unstable country, both politically and economically. In 1996, inflation was 103 per cent., and economic pressures of that magnitude have, in turn, led to a great deal of unrest. There have been several failed attempts at military coups in the past few years.

Venezuela's human rights record is also dubious—most notoriously in the prison and police services. In prisons, there are frequent instances of torture to obtain confessions, corruption and appalling overcrowding. Last year's Amnesty International report states: Prison conditions continued to deteriorate and often amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Although the government acknowledged the lack of security for prison inmates, serious overcrowding and extremely poor sanitary conditions, they failed to act to reform the prison system. A press report from November 1996 states that, since 1992, 360 prisoners have died in custody. In January 1994, 100 prisoners died during a riot and a fire at Sabaneta prion, Maracaibo, and, more recently, in October 1996, 30 prisoners were burnt to death at the notorious La Planta gaol in Caracas.

James Miles and Paul Loseby are currently being held in a detention centre, La Vega, rather than a prison, thanks to initial pressure placed on the Venezuelan authorities. I record my gratitude, and that of their parents, that they were not transferred to La Planta. However, as I have already informed the House, the young men are still held in severely overcrowded conditions, with no separation of prisoners according to the severity of their alleged crimes or any other rational grounds. If the young men were to be transferred to the even worse prison conditions, I would seriously question their ability to survive such an ordeal.

May I say at this point that I—together with, I am sure, every hon. Member—categorically condemn any use of drugs, trafficking or dealing of any sort. Those responsible should be punished severely for their inexcusable activities and for the devastating effects that drugs have on people's lives and on society as a whole. I condemn wholeheartedly such practices in any circumstances for whatever reason, and agree, in principle, that sentences should be tough and that strong deterrent measures must be enforced worldwide.

Mr. and Mrs. Miles and Mr. and Mrs. Loseby also condemn drug dealing, but they categorically maintain that their sons are innocent victims in the real crime that has clearly been committed. These young men, who were on holiday in a foreign land far from home, were allegedly held at gunpoint and made to carry drugs against their will. However, as we have seen in numerous cases of miscarriage of justice, the relevant authorities consider that they have solved this case by arresting the two young men.

The real criminals not only go unpunished, but remain free to continue their evil work and to ruin more lives. Whatever the precise nature of James's and Paul's involvement, it is crystal clear that extremely sinister forces remain at large and in the shadows. As these two young men fester and rot in a detention centre, evil and wicked people continue their multi-billion dollar trafficking in death, amid the apparent indifference of self-satisfied authorities who appear to have selected their sacrificial victims.

What can the British Government do? I am delighted to see the Minister of State on the Front Bench this evening, as I know that he takes these matters very seriously. It is time to put an end to the weeks and months of waiting and not knowing because of the bureaucratic lethargy and inefficiency of the Venezuelan judicial system. It is time to act, and to fight for justice for the families of the young men.

Was their trial free and fair, with proper legal representation and translation? Now that the trial has apparently taken place —bizarre though the circumstances were—can the Government try to ensure that the young men are repatriated promptly to serve their time in a British gaol? Like his predecessors, I hope that the Minister will exert as much diplomatic pressure as possible on the Venezuelan authorities to ensure that the matter progresses.

Pressure for the judicial system to speed up its handling of this case will be extremely helpful. The waiting is adding to the distress of the families, not to mention the financial burden that they are ill equipped to shoulder. As I have said, conditions are bad, and the health of both young men and their families has been chronically affected.

The fact that James and Paul have apparently been tried and sentenced makes the repatriation agreement all the more urgent We need pressure, pending the formalisation of an agreement, to allow the young people to be repatriated to serve their sentence in Britain. In the meantime, we need to see improved input from the consular section of the British embassy. It is not good enough to have to wait seven days to be told that the trial has taken place.

There is no way in which the family can continue to support the young men in the way that they have until now. I must tell the House that, if there is no tangible progress within the next three weeks, as soon as practicable after Parliament rises I shall go to Venezuela myself to see the young men, assess their conditions, meet the lawyers acting on their behalf, and exert whatever pressure I can on the relevant authorities in Caracas. I shall, of course, do so only after consulting my hon. Friend, and only if he and the parents feel that my visit will be helpful.

This country enjoys good relations with Venezuela. That fact alone should be an advantage in our attempt to get an acceptable solution to this problem. We should rely on our allies to act fairly with our citizens, as we most clearly do with theirs.

Surely it is against the principle of natural justice that two families should also be punished with their children. We recognise that British citizenship does not confer immunity in terms of committing an offence overseas, and nor should it, but at the same time the Government have an absolute obligation to their citizens who face difficulties overseas. Whatever the cause or circumstances, one also feels that the terms and conditions of detention and punishment should be broadly commensurate with what we now generally hold to be minimal standards for the treatment of any human being, irrespective of his or her offence.

This is a matter of human rights that transcends questions of frontier or nationality. There are many victims of such appalling circumstances in Venezuela, and numerous other countries, about whom, sadly, we can do absolutely nothing. In the case of young James Miles and Paul Loseby, there is something that we can do.

I have attempted to outline a course of action tonight. I sincerely hope that the new Government will take notice and respond.

10.37 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. The case of James Miles and Paul Loseby involves drug-related issues. I should like to take the opportunity to state at the outset in the strongest possible terms that the Government are fully committed to the fight against drugs, and will do all they can to stamp out the evil of international drug trafficking. We will co-operate with any country that shares that commitment.

I very much welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that point. He was right to talk about the evil of drugs and the way in which drugs have damaged, indeed ruined, the lives of so many young people. Both of us will know from our constituencies the way in which drugs operate as a social evil.

I also welcome this opportunity to record the actions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in this case. I shall first outline our knowledge of the case to date and refer to the help that we have provided for Mr. Miles, Mr. Loseby and their families. I should also put it on record that we respect my hon. Friend's strong commitment to his constituents. His support will mean a great deal to the families concerned.

The facts are as follows, James Miles and Paul Loseby were arrested at Caracas airport on 4 November last year as they were about to board a flight. They were found to have 10 kg of cocaine strapped around their waists. They claimed that a man with whom they had been socialising had threatened to shoot them if they refused to carry the cocaine. Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby were subsequently charged with drug trafficking. They were found guilty of possession of drugs, and they have been sentenced to four years' imprisonment.

The British embassy in Caracas was told on 6 November by the Venezuelan police about the arrest of two—I stress unnamed—British citizens. Consular staff sought immediate access, which was granted on the afternoon of 7 November.

The consular division of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office contacts families of British nationals who are detained overseas as soon as they have enough information to enable them to do so. In this case the Venezuelan authorities allowed local television and press access to the young men before the consular visit took place. That, as my hon. Friend said, was deplorable. As a result, stories of their arrest appeared before the consular division was aware of the full facts. This pre-empted a call to the families from consular staff in London.

The press stories created confusion, because mistakes were made in reporting the names and ages of the detainees. A consular officer in Caracas established the real identities of Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby during the visit on 7 November. The House might be interested to know that Mr. Loseby was travelling on a passport in the name of Paul Richard Clark, which added to the consular confusion.

Consular staff cannot guarantee that they will always be able to alert families of detainees before the stories hit the newspapers. Sometimes the detainees do not want the Foreign Office, or in some cases even their families, to be informed. For reasons of consular privacy, we cannot inform families unless we have been spoken to and obtained permission of the detainee.

What is the role of our consular services? The job of our consular staff in Venezuela is to ensure that Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby have access to a lawyer; that they know their legal position and have information about the legal and prison system; that they receive the same level of treatment as other prisoners and are not discriminated against in any way; and that any medical problems are dealt with quickly. Any complaint of ill treatment is taken up, and will be taken up, vigorously with the police or prison authorities.

Our staff can, and will, pass messages and money for prison comforts from their families. The welfare of British prisoners is a high priority for the Government. We are acutely aware that the needs of their families are important, too. We help them as far as possible to keep in regular contact with the prisoners.

It is important to stress that our role is essentially humanitarian. We do not provide legal advice. It is for the Venezuelan courts to decide whether Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby are guilty of drug trafficking. Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby have been encouraged to take legal advice to help them with their defence and to guide them through their trial. We now, of course, know the result of that process.

So much for our actions in Venezuela. At home, as my hon. Friend will know, the families of Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby called on our consular division in London in November 1996. They spoke at length with the officials responsible for the welfare of Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby, and, together with my hon. Friend, met the head of consular division, who explained fully the role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

I am pleased to say that Mr. Miles's father visited his son and Mr. Loseby at La Vega in November 1996. Consular staff in Caracas helped him by meeting him at the airport, arranging his accommodation, providing transport to La Veda, and gaining him extra access to the prisoners. Consular staff in London helped to secure a grant for Mr. Loseby from the Royal British Legion for possible medical expenses.

My hon. Friend made strong reference to the legal proceedings. Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby initially employed a lawyer, who had been selected and paid for by Mr. Miles's father. They were unhappy with the progress the lawyer was making, and chose a different one, who was officially assigned to their case by the court in April. This change of lawyer caused further delay in the already lengthy legal proceedings. But Mr. Miles, Mr. Loseby and their families did not ask the British embassy or the consular division to apply pressure to expedite the proceedings.

Mr. Vaz

I am astonished to hear that, because Mr. Miles and his wife and Mr. and Mrs. Loseby have been in constant contact with the Foreign Office to try to ensure that the case is progressed. I have brought this matter to the attention of the House because of that pressure.

My hon. Friend mentioned the legal proceedings. He and his colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary, have made an outstanding start in the Foreign Office. One of the great principles of the new Administration is that morality should underlie Britain's foreign policy. Does the Minister believe that it is morally or legally right for defendants to be sentenced in a foreign country that is an ally of Britain after a trial at which they were not present? Is that a proper way for the legal system to operate?

Mr. Fatchett

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on the new Labour Government's foreign policy. They will be well received by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary: he will be delighted to know that we are gaining support from my hon. Friend and in many other places.

My hon. Friend referred to prison conditions in Venezuela, and perhaps I could comment on that.

Mr. Vaz

My hon. Friend has charmingly taken the compliments, but has not answered my question. My concern is not about prison conditions in Venezuela, but about the fact that my constituents, who are British citizens, have been sentenced without attending a trial. How can it be right for the Government to allow a friendly country to sentence our citizens when they were not even present at their trial?

Mr. Fatchett

I shall deal with that point. If my hon. Friend waits a moment, he will get the answer to his question.

I accept what my hon. Friend said about prison conditions in Venezuela, which are extremely difficult. They fall some way short of what we consider acceptable. We have complained about this to the Venezuelan authorities, and, together with our European Union partners, have pressed for improvements in prison conditions. Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby believe that the La Vega police cells, where they are currently held, provide a safer and more comfortable environment than any of the Venezuelan prisons.

Under Venezuelan law, the young men should have been sent to a prison within eight days of their arrival in La Vega. However, our ambassador in Caracas persuaded the Venezuelan authorities, on behalf of the two accused persons, that they should be kept in La Vega until a verdict was reached. The time that they have spent in La Vega will count towards their sentence, which was recently announced.

Our embassy in Caracas has remained in regular and almost daily contact with Mr. Lyon, Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby's current lawyer. Our ambassador undertook to provide consular staff in Venezuela with reports of developments in the case. On 5 May, he anticipated that a verdict might be reached in a matter of months, but he stressed that that was only an estimate, and we now know that events have moved on.

I shall deal with the two important issues to which my hon. Friend referred. The embassy contacted the court, and the court has confirmed that both men were found not guilty of trafficking in drugs, but guilty of possession. They have been sentenced to four years in prison. Venezuelan law allows for a sentence of four to six years. We immediately advised Mrs. Miles, and left messages with my hon. Friend's paging service.

Mr. Vaz

Today.

Mr. Fatchett

That is when we received the information. We have been unable to contact Mr. and Mrs. Loseby: we have been told that they are on holiday.

Both men intend to appeal, and efforts are being made to ensure that they remain at La Vega until the appeal has been heard.

My hon. Friend referred to due process. We would be unhappy if due process in Venezuela was not being followed in the way that we consider to conform to universal standards, and we have made that point.

My hon. Friend spoke of the need to establish whether it was possible for the two convicted citizens to be returned to the United Kingdom. As he knows, we have pressed the Venezuelan Government to join the Council of Europe convention for the transfer of convicted persons, and we will continue to press the point. We hope that the Venezuelans will listen to our argument, and that it will then be possible for the two to return to the United Kingdom to finish their sentences.

I hope that I have dealt with my hon. Friend's points. This is a difficult case—I understand all the difficulties—but, as my hon. Friend said, drug taking and drug trafficking are awful businesses, and we must all be very vigilant.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.