§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
§ 7 pm
§ Sandra Gidley (Romsey)I welcome the opportunity provided by this Adjournment debate to highlight the plight of Mr. Ian Stillman. The main reason for asking for the debate is to highlight the Foreign Office involvement in the case, which is ongoing, and to ask two simple questions: has the support given so far been adequate, and can the Foreign Office do better in future?
For the record, I need to explain how the case began and how events have progressed. My involvement arises because Ian's sister, Elspeth Dugdale, is a constituent. As I have learned more about the case and the family, I have developed a sense of outrage that Ian's human rights have been so completely ignored by the Indian authorities, and of extreme disappointment at the extent and nature of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's support. That has come as a complete shock to me.
Ian Stillman is British and a charity worker. He is profoundly deaf and has spent most of his adult life working with the deaf community in India. He founded an Indian charity and has advised the Indian Government and several non-governmental organisations. He has an Indian wife and loves the country and its people, and has stressed that this is a one-off situation rather than representative of the system at large.
Before I go any further it also needs to be understood that Ian has another disability. He lost a leg in a motorcycle accident in 1995 and has since had a false limb fitted. Anyone familiar with false limbs knows that it can be difficult for the owner to carry heavy weights, as the balance of the body is severely affected.
I come now to the circumstances in which Ian Stillman found himself in an Indian jail. On 27 August 2000, Ian was visiting the Kullu area in relation to his charity work and was arrested at a town called Menali. He was sleeping in the rear of a taxi which was stopped at a checkpoint. There were about 10 police and one other official who was not in uniform. That person appears on no police documentation and the prosecution has denied that he was present.
Ian was ordered out of the taxi. It was night and communication was impossible. The police carried out a brief search and said that they had found evidence of a suspicious substance in the taxi. Ian and the other occupants of the taxi were taken to the police station. The police later searched Ian's hotel room and the taxi and uncovered a green bag which was attributed to Ian. That was the first time that Ian had seen the bag, and to this day he does not know whether it was in the taxi where he was sleeping or what it contained.
Ian was then asked to sign a number of documents, most of which were in Hindi, a language that he does not speak or read. Initially, he refused to sign, but he had to give in to pressure.
It should be borne in mind that Ian is profoundly deaf, it was dark and he had little idea of what was going on. He gave the police the name and number of a local acquaintance who he thought could help with interpretation. It is not known whether the police made the call. It is a fact that no one turned up.
255 At about 4 pm the next day, Ian was brought before the local magistrate. On the basis of the police report and statement which was signed under duress, Ian was taken into custody pending formal charges. The other occupants of the taxi were released and Ian never saw them again. That is the background.
Ian was then taken to Kullu jail, which is a relatively small jail with up to 50 male prisoners. He was placed in a room measuring approximately 23 ft by 12 ft and he shared that space with up to 35 other prisoners. There was no glass in the window and at night it was freezing cold. There was one toilet for 35 men and each person had just under 2 ft of sleeping room on a concrete floor. That was in August.
What I find extremely hard to understand is why, according to the answer to my parliamentary question, the British high commissioner did not act to improve the conditions. Ian was in Kullu jail from August 2000 to June 2001. He was visited by consular officials on 5 September, 5 December and 21 February.
What I find beyond belief is that apparently the high commission staff thought that the standards were acceptable. Clearly they were not, and it is a damning indictment of our officials that they appeared to do so little at a time of such need. During that time it was clear that Ian's health was deteriorating and those conditions and a lack of a proper diet probably contributed to Ian's health problems.
The trial began on 14 March, but was delayed for six weeks because the police did not turn up. Most importantly, Ian was refused a deaf interpreter, despite the fact that he could not hear the court proceedings. He can lip-read English, but has no understanding of Hindi. That basic denial of Ian's human rights prevented him from receiving a fair trial. On 2 June, a guilty verdict was given. Stephen Jakobi of Fair Trials Abroad, who has been helping the family, described the verdict as
the worst miscarriage of justice I have dealt with".At this stage, I will give some credit to the Foreign Office, which made strong representations on welfare grounds at that time. The hope was that Ian would be able to access better medical treatment and see his family more often. Initially, his son was allowed to visit more frequently and bring supplies of fresh fruit and vegetables. Unfortunately, that did not last, and despite the family bringing the problem to the attention of Foreign Office officials, matters did not improve. In fact, it is fair to say that the family were frequently presented with this response: "But when we ask, they say that he is getting the agreed visits and provisions." Why does the Foreign Office appear far more ready to believe the Indian authorities than the family, who are reporting the problems at first hand? They do not want to make up these things; they have got enough to worry about.
Happily, in June and July last year, the Foreign Office moved things along considerably. There were concerns about a campaign of disinformation in India about Ian. The police were saying that he was wanted by Interpol, but that is completely untrue and the Foreign Office issued a press release putting the record straight and denying the suggestion completely. I am also aware that the Foreign Secretary raised the case on 26 June. That intervention and consequent action meant that the appeal hearing was held relatively quickly, in Indian terms. On behalf of the family, I should like to express appreciation for those efforts.
256 Unfortunately for Ian, after a catalogue of disasters connected with the appeal—sadly, I do not have time to detail them—it was unsuccessful. Naturally, everyone was completely devastated when the verdict was finally announced early this year. A key factor was that the Indian authorities refused to accept that Ian is deaf. Also, all this is happening at a time when there are ever-increasing concerns about Ian's health.
On 14 January, the family, Stephen Jakobi from Fair Trials Abroad and I met Foreign Office staff to raise the following issues. First, we raised problems to do with the trial. We pointed out that, as I mentioned, the other two occupants of the taxi had apparently been allowed to escape scot-free. Local police corruption was also an issue. Although the officials listened politely, they made it clear that that was a problem for the Indian legal system and that they could not get involved. Stephen Jakobi pointed out that all the defence arguments in the initial trial had apparently been wiped from the record. Again, the Foreign Office claimed that it could not become involved with the matter, as it related to a legal procedure. It is crucial that the information be taken into account in any appeal; the fact that it is missing could be detrimental to Ian's case.
Secondly, concerns about Ian's medical condition were again raised. Ian had described his symptoms and his sister showed the descriptions to a number of medically qualified people. All of them were convinced that he should receive immediate medical attention. The Foreign Office response was not particularly helpful, although I do not think that that was deliberate. The family were told that such second-hand reports were not enough and that notice would be taken only of an up-to-date report by an Indian doctor. That is especially problematic as the family were keen to put together sufficient information regarding Ian's health to use it as a basis for the bail hearing. They were told that Ian's old medical notes from England would not be suitable and that it would be necessary to provide the most up-to-date information from local doctors. No help was forthcoming to enable the family to obtain the necessary documents.
The one concession—if it can be called that—to come out of the meeting was this: the Foreign Office was about to set up a pro bono medical panel and suggested that this would be an ideal first case for it. Naturally, that gesture was greeted with enthusiasm, but we can imagine the family's dismay when they were recently contacted and asked if they still wanted to go ahead with the panel. However, there is another more fundamental issue, which is an example of muddled thinking: if the opinion of a local doctor is so essential in such cases, what is the point of having a medical panel of English doctors? Why is that necessary if we need the experience and expertise of the foreign doctors?
Thirdly, the family were still concerned that the local press was continuing to run the story about Ian's not being deaf and being a wanted criminal. They asked the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to issue a second press release setting the record straight. That request was repeated at a meeting with Baroness Amos in February. To date, no action has been taken, and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why.
Fourthly, concerns were raised about the actions and advice of some of the consular officials. On the initial visit, Dinesh Kumar, one of those officials, had been accompanied by an unidentified female. Ian greeted that 257 act with suspicion, and the family believe that the person was a journalist. The Foreign Office dismissed the matter, saying that it is not unusual for a third party to come along, but they have not provided the name of the mystery female so that she can be identified.
The incident is more important than it sounds. Ian's reluctance to talk on that occasion may have affected the way in which the Foreign Office regards the case. Other concerns focus on the fact that initial legal advice on finding a local lawyer was not the best. The locality is under the control of a single individual, and there is evidence of police and official corruption. Those concerns were repeated a couple of weeks later, when we met Baroness Amos, and medical papers describing the severity of the condition were handed over at that stage.
Unfortunately, even though the December visit had been missed, the next consular visit to Ian was not brought forward. Why was the December visit missed? The excuse given was that Ian was at the dentist. Bearing in mind the fact that the journey from New Delhi to the jail takes two days, it beggars belief that a consular official travelled all that way without making more strenuous efforts to see Ian. Does the Minister truly believe that that is a good enough standard of service?
Matters have moved on a little, and Ian is now seeing a doctor, but that is solely because of the family's strenuous efforts. If the family had been unable to visit India, and without relatives who could try to help, the story could have been completely different. Will the Minister please tell the House how long Ian Stillman would have waited to see a doctor had the family been naive enough to believe that the consular service was looking after him? It is telling that, when an appointment was finally arranged, Ian was immediately admitted to hospital and the suspected problem was confirmed. Had the condition been allowed to continue, it is highly likely that Ian would have lost his remaining good limb.
Before I turn to the future, I want to highlight a problem that touches on the Stillman family's relationship with the Foreign Office, and with British-based legal advisers on international law. Lawyers from Fair Trials Abroad have assisted Ian and his family since August 2001. The Stillmans deeply appreciate the trust's help, particularly on legal analysis, selection of the Indian supreme court appeals team, legal research into the Indian constitution, and effective participation in one's own trial as a human right—a crucial element in the grounds of appeal.
Nevertheless, two astonishing incidents occurred, involving attempts by the Foreign Office to interfere with solicitor-client relationships. Initially, the Stillmans were very grateful for the Foreign Office's unsolicited offer of a lawyer. They thought that they were being offered a pro bono Indian lawyer, but they subsequently discovered that the lawyer was English and had little knowledge or experience, as he had only recently joined the profession.
The Foreign Office's second intervention involved contacting the Stillman family to offer one of its approved lawyers to support Indira Jaising, the Indian barrister who was selected and instructed by Fair Trials Abroad. At no point did the Foreign Office contact Fair Trials Abroad. I have to question the conduct of the Foreign Office. Is it normal practice for it to offer a lawyer's services, when 258 it knew full well that a lawyer—one who rattles cages, at times—had already been appointed? It also knew that its recommended lawyer could offer no specialist help.
The trust is seeking a declaration from the Foreign Office that, in cases where the Foreign Office is aware that Fair Trials Abroad is engaged, any approach on matters falling within its mission should be made through the trust. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the appropriate assurances. It would also help all British citizens to know on what basis lawyers are recruited and recommended, and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on that point. The trust regrets asking me to raise the matter in the House. It is keenly aware that a special relationship with the Foreign Office is essential to its client's best interests.
It is also a disappointment to the family that more strenuous attempts to plead Ian's case were not made when Ministers travelled to India. Answers to questions tabled by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) show that, although Foreign Office Ministers discussed Ian's case with Indian Home Office Ministers, the Prime Minister did not raise it with the President or the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to India in January. There has been no sustained ministerial pressure at the very highest level.
That is the record that the Government must answer for, but I am more interested in moving forward, and I seek the Minister's assurance that the following actions will be taken.
First, it would be much appreciated and very helpful to the appeal if the Foreign Office issued a press release as soon possible rebutting the unfounded allegations that are still being made against Ian. Secondly, the Government should rapidly get up to speed with the health problems and ensure that the identified care needs are dealt with and that the family have access to complete records. They should then intervene on health grounds to try to speed up the appeal to the supreme court. The Minister may be aware that it has been lodged today.
Thirdly, I ask that the Foreign Office intervene so that Ian is released on bail. There is a powerful case, because it is clear that there has been a dreadful contravention of Ian's human rights. I urge the Minister to undertake to follow through on those three actions. If an individual in the United Kingdom has a problem, he rightly expects his Member of Parliament to help. It is also expected that if someone gets into trouble abroad, the British embassy or high commission will fulfil that pastoral role. Please, Minister, reassure me that that is the case.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)I hope to do so, and to reassure the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that many of the allegations that she has directed towards our consular officials are unfounded. However, I first congratulate her on securing the debate on Ian Stillman. There has been extensive parliamentary and public interest in his case, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the action that we have taken so far on his behalf.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my noble Friend Baroness Amos—the Minister with primary responsibility for such consular cases—and I have taken 259 an active role in Mr. Stillman's case, and Foreign Office officials have done a great deal on his behalf. I shall spell out some of what they have done.
The hon. Member for Romsey has outlined the background and we agree on it. Mr. Stillman made an appeal to the High Court against his conviction in October 2001, but it was rejected on 11 January 2002. Mr. Stillman intends to appeal to the supreme court.
We have done all we can to help Mr. Stillman since his arrest on 28 August 2000. The police first informed our high commission in New Delhi of his arrest on 30 August and Mr. Stillman spoke to a consular official on the telephone that same day. Mr. Stillman said that he was fine, that the police were treating him well and that a local friend would inform his family of his arrest.
A consular official visited Mr. Stillman on 5 September—less than a week later—at a jail in Kullu. Mr. Stillman had no complaints about his treatment and said that he was satisfied with the facilities provided by the prison authorities. Our consular official communicated with Mr. Stillman by writing notes, explained Indian legal procedures and gave him a list of English-speaking lawyers in India.
We have taken a close interest in Mr. Stillman's welfare since his arrest. Our consular staff in New Delhi have monitored it closely during consular visits, which generally take place every three months, and by liaising with Mr. Stillman's son, who visits him in prison approximately twice a week. Consular officials are also in touch with Mr. Stillman's wife, who lives in India, and have met members of his family who visited New Delhi. Most recently, senior officials met representatives from his family on 1 March and 5 March 2002.
Our consular staff in London are also in frequent contact with Mr. Stillman's family in the United Kingdom by telephone and e-mail. Consular officials also met his family on four occasions-14 May and 2 July 2001, and 14 January and 7 February 2002. As the hon. Member for Romsey pointed out, my noble Friend Baroness Amos discussed the case with Mr. Stillman's sister on 5 February.
Our consular staff have taken all possible measures to ensure that the Indian authorities are meeting Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements adequately and they have been instrumental in achieving improvements to many aspects of his detention. I have to say to the hon. Lady that, before his conviction in 2001, we had not been asked to help with any transfer.
In June 2001, following the first request that we received, our consular staff helped to arrange for Mr. Stillman to be transferred to his current prison in Kanda, which is relatively new and has better conditions and facilities. We also helped to ensure that Mr. Stillman was provided with a wheelchair, and that he was able to use a computer and have better lighting in his cell. Mr. Stillman has his own room in Kanda prison and we understand that fellow inmates have been assisting.
§ Sandra GidleyDoes the Minister accept that the reason why Ian Stillman did not want to rock the boat initially was that he knew he was innocent and thought that he would soon be out of there? He thought that the 260 best way to get a quick trial was by not making a fuss. Does the Minister still think it acceptable for somebody to be in such cramped conditions for so long?
§ Mr. BradshawIt is not for me to comment on Mr. Stillman's motives for not seeking consular help before his conviction. The implication of the hon. Lady's earlier allegations was that we did not do what was requested of us before his conviction. We did: we received a request only after conviction.
Throughout his detention, Mr. Stillman has received medical treatment from prison doctors. During a prison visit on 16 July 2001, our High Commission also sought permission for a visit by a specialist after Mr. Stillman's family informed us that he was experiencing phantom pains, thought to have been caused by his artificial leg. His family provided our high commission with details of the prosthetic specialist of their choice shortly thereafter, and a written formal request was sent to the prison authorities on 21 July 2001. Our high commission followed up those requests with the prison authorities, who granted permission for a prosthetic specialist to visit on 24 September 2001. Mr. Stillman's artificial leg was subsequently remoulded.
In January this year, Mr. Stillman's family informed consular officials in London that Mr. Stillman's health had deteriorated. We offered to refer his case to a doctor on the FCO's pro bono panel of doctors to obtain an independent assessment of any risk to his health and whether he was receiving proper medical treatment. We asked his family to send us copies of his medical reports from doctors who had examined him recently, as we do not have a legal right to obtain those documents ourselves. Mr. Stillman's father wrote to the prison requesting the records, and our high commission in New Delhi contacted the prison authorities in support of his request on 14 and 22 March. As soon as we receive Mr. Stillman's medical reports we shall refer his case to a doctor on our pro bono panel.
Our high commission in New Delhi has also been helping Mr. Stillman's family to arrange for a medical specialist of their choice to visit Mr. Stillman. It wrote to the additional director of prisons on 11 March this year in support of a recent request by Mr. Stillman's father for a specialist visit. We understand that the prison authorities have now agreed to such a visit. The authorities also permitted Mr. Stillman to be taken on 21 March this year to a hospital in Chandigarh, where he was examined by a neurologist, an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist and a general physician.
Consular officials visited Mr. Stillman while he was at the hospital and spent almost two hours with him and his son. Mr. Stillman raised a number of issues with them and asked whether the high commission could help arrange for a further visit by a prosthetic specialist and for his wheelchair to be repaired. On 22 March, a consular official raised those issues with the prison authorities, who agreed to Mr. Stillman's requests.
Our consular representative also asked the prison authorities if Mr. Stillman's son could continue to visit him frequently and interpret for him when he was taken 261 to the hospital. Our high commission in New Delhi will continue to do all that it can to ensure that the Indian authorities meet Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements.
We recognise what a distressing experience Mr. Stillman's arrest has been both for him and for his family. I hope, however, that the hon. Lady will understand that international law prevents us from getting involved in the judicial process of another country. Our own judicial proceedings are similarly protected from outside interference.
Our objectives remain to ensure proper conditions for Mr. Stillman and a transparent and expeditious judicial process. It is not the case that interventions have not been made at a high level. On 26 June 2001, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about Mr. Stillman's welfare and our hope that his appeal to the high court would be heard as quickly as possible with the Indian high commissioner and Prime Minister Vajpayee's Principal Secretary, Brajesh Mishra. On 4 July 2001, the Deputy Prime Minister raised his case with the Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, and Mr. Mishra. I also raised it with the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Omar Abdullah, on 18 February 2002 during my visit to New Delhi, and I asked that Mr. Stillman's appeal to the supreme court be heard as quickly as possible once it has been submitted. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue again most recently with the Indian Home Minister, Mr. Advani, on 27 February 2002.
I should like to respond to a couple of the specific points that the hon. Lady raised. She asked about the allegation that was being made in the Indian media and by others that Mr. Stillman was not deaf, and that he was a criminal and wanted in the United Kingdom. Our high commission in New Delhi issued a press statement on 3 July 2001 making it absolutely clear that Mr. Stillman was not a wanted criminal in the UK. However, it is for Mr. Stillman's lawyer to present the proof that Mr. Stillman is deaf during his appeal to the supreme court.
§ Sandra GidleyI fully accept that that useful action was taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at that time. It helped considerably, because the 262 misinformation campaign stopped. However, it has now started again, so could the Foreign and Commonwealth Office repeat its previous action?
§ Mr. BradshawI have no objection to re-issuing the press release, but the implication of the hon. Lady's question was that we had not already taken such action. I am perfectly happy to issue a press release again.
The hon. Lady also asked about the first consular visit to Mr. Stillman on 5 September 2000. A friend of our consular representative accompanied him on that visit. Our consular representative asked Mr. Stillman whether he had any objections to the friend being present. The suggestion was made—perhaps not by the hon. Lady—that the friend may have been a journalist, and that may have inhibited Mr. Stillman from talking. I assure her that that was not the case, and he was not inhibited from talking.
We have also offered Mr. Stillman the assistance of a British lawyer from our pro bono panel. The panel consists of 53 UK-qualified barristers and solicitors. Among other services, they are able to offer free legal advice to the local lawyers of British prisoners abroad on human rights issues, such as fair trials.
I am aware of the allegation by the director of Fair Trials Abroad, Stephen Jakobi, that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office interfered in his relationship with his client because it offered to put Mr. Stillman in touch with a lawyer from our pro bono panel. I wish to point out that neither Mr. Stillman nor his family informed our consular staff that Mr. Jakobi had been formally instructed as Mr. Stillman's lawyer in the UK. Indeed, Mr. Stillman accepted our offer to put him in touch with a British lawyer from our pro bono panel in February. Ultimately, it is for Mr. Stillman to choose which lawyer he would like to represent him.
I hope that I have made it clear that, contrary to what the hon. Lady suggests, our consular officials have acted properly in this case. They have done everything possible, including paying regular visits and providing regular access to our consular officials in Delhi and in this country, and they will continue to do all they can to ensure that Mr. Stillman is well treated while he is in detention and that his appeal to the supreme court is heard as quickly as possible.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.