§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
9.35 pm§ Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone)I am aware that some hon. Members have already had meetings about this case with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). I have become involved because it transpires that Professor Lowery has a home in my constituency; if he were living in the United Kingdom, he would be in my constituency. Consequently, to all intents and purposes he is my constituent.
I discussed the matter with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) two or three weeks ago before his visit to Portugal. He was kind enough to tell me that he would try to ensure that the case was on the agenda, and that he would raise the matter if he got the opportunity. Unfortunately, in his discussions, he was unable to get to that item on the agenda, so the matter was not raised. I appreciate the fact that he tried to raise it.
I shall describe Professor Lowery's character by referring to his background. He is an academic; he graduated from Queen's university in Belfast in 1969. Since then, he has worked at a number of colleges in the United Kingdom, lastly at Warwick university where he worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston). After that, he left for America, and, while working at colleges and universities there, he was awarded a professorship. Since then, he has moved to work in Portugal.
I contend that my constituent is being treated unfairly by the Portuguese authorities, who have refused him bail on several occasions. They have even refused to contemplate house arrest. It is clear that he is being treated much worse than a Portuguese national would be treated; it seems that he is being discriminated against because he is a foreigner. I say that because we can make comparisons with similar cases in which Portuguese nationals have been treated differently.
I should like to bring to the House's attention the case of Pedro Caldeira, who was charged with white collar crime; it was a similar charge to the one that Professor Lowery faces. That man was given bail despite the fact that there was evidence that he might flee the jurisdiction, as he had previously absconded. I am told that the man even confessed to his crime on a national television programme. The Portuguese authorities saw fit to give him bail, whereas my constituent has been refused bail. Therefore, it appears that my constituent is being refused bail simply because he is a foreigner. From what I have been told by his legal advisers, there is a strong indication that he has not been treated as innocent until proven guilty, the concept that is supposed to underlie the Portuguese legal system.
My constituent was arrested in April 1997 and held for a year before charges were made. That is in accord with the Portuguese legal code; a person can be held for 12 months before charges are made. In this case, my constituent was charged on the 365th day. In such a situation, it becomes very difficult for defence lawyers because they are not able in that 12-month period to see 1287 prosecution evidence. Therefore, they are unable to mount—this was true of the lawyers in this case—a substantial challenge against a refusal of bail.
In this case, there have been five applications for bail, and five appeals have been rejected. My constituent's applications were accompanied on each occasion, I understand, by a statement from his doctors pointing out that he should be released on bail or on house arrest for health reasons. The prison doctor service has rejected that evidence. I am told by my constituent's legal advisers that it did so without even giving him a cursory medical examination. The medical evidence has just been disregarded.
No evidence has been provided by the Portuguese authorities that my constituent is violent, that he would be likely to flee the country if given bail or that he would interfere with the investigation. Those tend to be the reasons why a judge would decide against giving bail, but my constituent is not of that nature. It would seem, therefore, that there is no good reason to refuse him bail.
My constituent has already surrendered his passport, I am told. He has offered sureties and agreed to report frequently to a police station if given bail. Additionally, he has a genuine, long-standing relationship with a Portuguese woman, so he has every reason to remain behind to see this thing through. Therefore, there is no reason why he should have been refused bail.
As a result of the difficult situation that my constituent has been put in, he has become so frustrated that he has started the process of making a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights, with the help of his legal advisers, Gudrun Parasie of the European legal advice service and Edward Fitzgerald QC. Those violations of my constituent's basic human rights seem to be legal in Portugal because, according to its penal code, a person can be held for a year, with no charges made until the 365th day, and there is no way in which his defence can have sight of prosecution documents. That tends to suggest a violation of human rights. I understand that it is on that aspect that the complaint will be made.
It seems that the contradiction within the Portuguese legal code comes about because of an outdated system, which needs to be thoroughly reviewed. I understand that it has been in place since the days of Salazar. One can understand why such a legal system operated in the days of that dictatorship, but it needs to be reviewed and brought into accord with the rest of Europe.
I am told that, although the Portuguese authorities have had a year to prepare their case, the documentation that has now become available has been shabbily put together, and there appears to have been a complete mix up. The prosecution evidence refers to no fewer than three individuals called David Lowery. What appears to have happened is that the Portuguese police asked Interpol and other police services for information on David Lowery without providing a date of birth. Consequently, the documents refer to three separate individuals. That does not inspire confidence that justice will be done.
I reiterate that, based on the information available, it appears that Professor Lowery is being discriminated against and that bail is being disallowed simply because he is a foreigner. When one bears in mind the mix up in the prosecution documentation, one fears that justice will 1288 not be done. It is all the worse for Professor Lowery because his health is failing. He is 54 years of age and the conditions in Portuguese prisons are notoriously bad. His family went out to visit him at the bank holiday and they are most concerned about him, although he has been seen by a doctor. They feel that his health is beginning to fail.
I am advised that the death rate in Portuguese prisons is 125 times the national average. The average age of prisoners is 30 and Professor Lowery is 54. Bearing in mind the conditions and the death rate in Portuguese prisons, and the age of Professor Lowery and the fact that he has a health problem, it is obvious why his family are extremely concerned.
Recently, the Portuguese newspaper Püblico likened a prison sentence in Portugal to a death sentence. That gives some indication of the severe and harsh conditions in Portuguese prisons. The case has attracted a great deal of attention because of the human rights violations that seem to be built into the Portuguese penal code, such as the right to hold a person for a year without bringing charges. A prominent English QC has written a 17-page report listing the human rights violations in this case alone.
In conclusion, Professor Lowery is 54 years of age. He is not very robust and his family feel that if he has to wait more years in prison, his health may fail. Therefore, I should be pleased if my hon. Friend did his utmost to raise the case of my constituent as a matter of urgency with his Portuguese counterpart, with a view to pressing for either bail or house arrest. Although house arrest would confine him to his home, he would be in an environment in which his health was not in jeopardy, as it is now. He could remain there until his case was dealt with.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for bringing Professor Lowery's case to the attention of the House. I should like to respond by explaining some of the background detail in the case, the way in which the Foreign Office has supported Professor Lowery, and, specifically, the role in it played by our embassy and consular staff.
I tell my hon. Friend that the Government are committed—as any United Kingdom Government would be—to supporting and helping all British nationals who are detained in overseas prisons. We shall ensure that we meet that broad commitment in the case of my hon. Friend's constituent, Professor Lowery.
The House might find it useful if I were to give some of the background to Professor Lowery's case. Although my hon. Friend briefly mentioned some of the points, hon. Members may gain a greater understanding of the case if I provide that background.
Professor Lowery was working in Portugal as the director of a company involved in buying and selling stocks and shares, collecting commercial information and conducting telemarketing. The company was called Paramount Portugal Consultadoria Commercial Limitada, and was established with the majority of the initial capital provided by Paramount Securities and Trust SA, of Switzerland, and the remainder by Professor Lowery himself.
1289 As my hon. Friend said, Professor Lowery was arrested on 22 April 1997, following complaints received by the Portuguese authorities from one or more investors in Ireland that share certificates marketed by Professor Lowery's company had been forged and were valueless. Professor Lowery was then detained in Caxias prison, pending police investigations into the complaints against him and the company.
Remand custody may be applied only if bail is considered inadequate, if there is a strong indication that a crime punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment of more than three years has been committed, and if the court considers that there is a danger that the defendant might flee. My hon. Friend has made some points on those criteria, but the court decided that, in this case, Professor Lowery came within some of those criteria. He was consequently held in detention without bail.
It might be useful if I were to explain some of the aspects of the Portuguese criminal procedural code. The code limits the length of custody on remand to six months, to allow the authorities to investigate accusations. The term can be increased to 12 months when the process is exceptionally complex because of the number of defendants, the number of plaintiffs or the highly organised nature of the alleged crime. The period can be lengthened also if crimes such as forgery of currency or credit instruments fraud are involved.
As my hon. Friend said, Professor Lowery was formally charged, in accordance with Portuguese law, on 21 April 1998. He was charged with criminal association, falsification of titles of credit, aggravated fraud and misuse of computerised data.
My hon. Friend may wish to know that the British embassy in Lisbon became aware of Professor Lowery's detention on 9 May 1997. The Portuguese authorities confirmed his arrest with the embassy on the same day. I am happy to report that consular staff sought immediate access, and visited Professor Lowery on 13 May. I can therefore tell my hon. Friend that—despite the points that he has made on legal procedures in Portugal and the nature of Portuguese law—consular staff were quick to respond as soon as they had information that Professor Lowery had been detained.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, it is now the responsibility of the Portuguese authorities to set a date for Professor Lowery's trial. Under Portuguese law, the maximum time that any prisoner can be held on remand is four years in total. In this case, that will include the time that Professor Lowery spent on remand before being charged.
That is the some of the background to the case. I am sure that hon. Members who are familiar with our consular role will be interested to know how we have responded to Professor Lowery's case. The job of our consular staff is to ensure that British prisoners overseas receive the same treatment as other prisoners, that they have proper and full access to a lawyer, that they have information about the legal and prison systems and that any medical problems are dealt with quickly. Moreover, if we learn of a justified and serious complaint about ill treatment, we take it up vigorously with the police or prison authorities. We are concerned that all British 1290 nationals who are detained overseas are dealt with in accordance with local laws; we take appropriate measures to ensure that they are.
As I have now answered a number of Adjournment debates on consular cases, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have responsibility—which we carry out—for looking after the well-being of British citizens in prison overseas and for ensuring that they receive their full rights in the context of the local law. However, as the UK Government, we cannot interfere with a country's legal system—in this case, the country is another member of the European Union.
It is crucial that we understand that the role of the consular service is to safeguard the welfare of British prisoners overseas. Our consular staff in Portugal aim to visit British prisoners on a regular basis. Consular staff in Lisbon have visited Professor Lowery four times since his arrest on 22 April 1997, most recently on 14 April this year. The ambassador in Lisbon has also agreed to visit Professor Lowery in prison; he will be in contact with him in the very near future about the proposed timing.
My hon. Friend referred to my recent visit to Lisbon. Unfortunately, because of the programme—I was there to visit Expo 98—I was unable to arrange to meet the Portuguese Foreign Minister, but I took the opportunity to express again to our ambassador in Lisbon the interest of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in Professor Lowery's case. I know that the ambassador is keeping a close eye on the case, as is shown by the fact that he will visit Professor Lowery in prison, largely as a result of the excellent representation that my hon. Friend has made for his constituent; the embassy's commitment and interest are demonstrated by the fact that it is rare for an ambassador to pay a prison visit.
Since Professor Lowery's arrest, our consular staff in Lisbon have maintained close contact with the prison authorities and with Professor Lowery's legal representatives. I understand that Professor Lowery is in close contact with his family and is visited regularly by his friends. If he wants our consular staff at any time to pass on any information to his family, they will be glad to do so.
My hon. Friend talked about Professor Lowery's health, and we fully understand the problems. We know that Professor Lowery suffers from high blood pressure; he told our consular staff when they visited him on 20 January this year that he had developed two lumps in his throat and had seen a private doctor. Since being informed of that development, our consular staff in Lisbon have pressed the prison authorities vigorously to ensure that Professor Lowery receives the medical attention that he needs and deserves.
The ambassador in Lisbon has written to the Minister of Justice on three occasions about Professor Lowery's health. Professor Lowery has now been seen by a specialist; he has also undergone tests in a private clinic outside the prison. He has been seen at the prison on a number of occasions by his own doctor, and he has also been seen by a dentist. The ambassador also wrote to the Minister of Justice on 17 February—on a humanitarian, 1291 rather than a legal, basis—to express concern at the length of time that Professor Lowery had been detained without charge.
I hope that all those points will convey to my hon. Friend that the consular staff and the ambassador have been extremely busy and fully involved. The consular staff will continue to monitor Professor Lowery's case and to do all that they appropriately can to help.
Professor Lowery's case has to remain a matter for the Portuguese legal system. That is how such cases are dealt with. It is not right or proper for us to try to interfere in that process, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. The legal system is independent of the Government in the Portuguese system, so the question of bail or release is for that system. The role of the Foreign Office and our consular staff is to ensure that Professor Lowery gets all his rights.
§ It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
§ Mr. FatchettWe will ensure that Professor Lowery receives all the support that he can from consular staff. If my hon. Friend feels that the professor's rights are being violated and that the embassy could help him, will he please let us know?
We heard what my hon. Friend said about possible legal action under human rights charters of the European Union, and we will be interested to see how that proceeds. We understand his concern, and will continue to take an interest in the case and do what we can to assist his constituent. We understand in particular the concerns about Professor Lowery's health and the prison conditions, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Foreign Office and our consular staff in Lisbon will be vigilant.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Ten o'clock.