§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Derek Twigg.]
§ 10.1 pm
§ Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet)I am grateful for the opportunity to put the case of Mr. J. Woodbridge before the House. As it is complex and reads like the introduction to a John Le Carre novel, I hope that the House will forgive me if I make fairly rapid progress and stick closely to my notes.
The case concerns my constituent, Mr. Jeff Woodbridge of Minster in Thanet. Mr. Woodbridge is an employee of Sigma Enterprises Ltd. of 3 Lion Yard, Clapham. My purpose in bringing the matter to House is three fold first, to put the extraordinary story on the record, along with my constituent's view of events; secondly, to ensure that Ministers are aware of the way in which consular and other Government services appear to have fallen below the standard that United Kingdom citizens are entitled to expect; and, thirdly, to express my disappointment that when I turned to Ministers for assistance, I did not receive a timely response, so my constituent in turn could not get from his Member of Parliament the support to which he was entitled.
First, let me give the background to the case. Seventeen years ago, a company called Dong Ah was involved in the "Great Man-Made River Project" in Libya—a project to bring water to the desert that at the time had the support of the international community, including the United States of America. Dong Ah purchased hydraulic shears from a US company called Pacific Press for use on the project. That equipment was supplied with the knowledge and support of the US Government.
In September 2001, a German company called BIB approached Pacific Press to acquire spare parts for those hydraulic shears. It is not known—by me at least—who acquired spares for the shears from Pacific Press on behalf of Dong Ah or the Libyans in the intervening period, although it stands to reason that someone must have done so as equipment of that nature would need regular maintenance. BIB was quoted a price of about $7,500, but did not respond until January 2002, when it placed its order and paid for the goods. Having received the money, Pacific Press subsequently reneged on the order, claiming that it would not export the goods directly, but would only supply to some other party in the US. BIB is a small company and it was unable to ignore the loss of the money that it had already paid, so it had to look for a US partner that was prepared to take delivery of the goods on its behalf and export them to Germany for onward shipping to Libya.
That is the point at which Mr. Woodbridge entered the picture. BIB contacted him to ask if he could help, as he trades extensively with the USA. After consulting his employers, it was decided on commercial grounds that Sigma could not directly assist—after all, the goods had already been paid for and there was no way in which the company could earn from the transaction. However, as a service to BIB, which is a valued customer of Sigma, it did agree to put BIB in touch with a company in 476 Miami with which Sigma had dealings and which it thought might be able to help. That company was Minequip, and its president is a Mr. John Clements
BIB contacted Mr. Clements and asked if he would take delivery of the parts and arrange their export. Mr. Clements accepted the parts from Pacific Press but, on discovering that they would need an export licence, returned them to Pacific Press and declined BIB's request for help. About two months later, out of the blue and for reasons about which I will speculate in a minute, Mr. Clements changed his mind, agreed to accept the parts and asked Sigma if he could ship the parts to them for onward road shipment to Germany as that was the cheapest means of transportation. Mr. Woodbridge and Sigma agreed
That was the total extent of Mr. Woodbridge's involvement in the affair:first, to pass on to BIB the name of the Miami contact and, secondly, to act as a staging post in the shipment of goods to Germany. Those acts were carried out by a UK company in the UK. Mr. Woodbridge at no time entered into negotiations on US soil. He has not broken any UK laws, and no one, including the DTI, has ever suggested that he has.
VAT and duty were paid on the goods as normal, so it is not realistic to suggest that there was anything clandestine about the arrangements. The parts themselves were for equipment that had been legally supplied by a US company, with the knowledge of the US Government, and which was to be used in an irrigation project. No equipment that is in any way capable of military, terrorist or hostile use was involved.
Despite that, on his next business trip to the US, Mr. Woodbridge was arrested at Minneapolis airport and charged with conspiring to supply the enemy. He spent 10 days in jail until his employers posted $50,000 bail. Mr. Woodbridge was flown to Benton, Illinois to appear before a judge for court appearances to be agreed. When considering future court appearances, the judge said that the case appeared to be a waste of everyone's time; nevertheless, the trial was scheduled for 7 October and subsequently took place on 24 October. On release by the court he was rearrested by US marshals—a decision that led to an argument between the state prosecutor and the US marshals—but released later that day, although he had to remain in the US until his trial.
How were others involved? It appears from information that emerged during the trial that Mr. Clements's telephone was being tapped and he was suspected of criminal activity. It emerged also that Mr. Clements was not, as everyone thought, a naturalised US citizen but a UK citizen and held two passports. One of those passports he used for trips to Cuba, but Cuban visas would not endear him to US immigration officials, so he used a different passport at other time
We can only speculate that Mr. Clements was offered immunity for other actions, possibly in connection with his trade with Cuba, in return for help with a sting operation against BIB. Hence he unexpectedly reversed his initial decision not to help BIB by exporting the parts from Pacific Press. Although Mr. Clements has been charged in respect of this case, and claims to have been tried and sentenced, the US probation service reports that the case is still pending.
477 We can only speculate also as to why Pacific Press has not been charged with any offence. During the trial it emerged that the company, or an employee, is also being helpful to the authorities in return either for a reward or for immunity against other charges. Presumably the company, or the employee, notified the authorities of the order in the first place as down payment for whatever consideration it, or he or she, subsequently received
I turn now to the trial and Mr. Woodbridge's experience of consular services. Throughout his detention in the US, Mr. Woodbridge attempted to get UK officials to help him. He and his employer hoped for diplomatic activity to assist him, but there is no sign that it ever took place. He is diabetic, and he had financial problems caused by having to stay in the US. He hoped that consular officials would offer advice but, in his view, no effective advice was forthcoming. He hoped also that the UK Government would take up the case with the US trade authorities on the ground that the US had acted in an extraterritorial manner, to the detriment of a UK company. He and his employers contacted the DTI.
I have seen e-mail correspondence with a DTI official who deals with extraterritorial issues, and she appears to have had a genuine interest in helping. Mr. Woodbridge's employers met her and other DTI officials, and contact was then made by the DTI with US lawyers who advise the DTI on these issues. The DTI also said that it would contact the British embassy in Washington to ask for its assistance
Those efforts do not appear to have been followed up. Why? Perhaps a clue can be found in an e-mail erroneously sent to Mr. Woodbridge by another official who was asked for advice as to how the DTI should proceed. When the official realised that the e-mail had been wrongly sent to Mr. Woodbridge he tried to recall it, but it had already been delivered. The e-mail makes it clear that this case has diplomatic and legal implications and advises officials to avoid getting involved
Mr. Woodbridge e-mailed a strong protest to the author and received a handsome apology. The official made it clear that he did not intend to minimise Mr. Woodbridge's suffering, and he made it clear that he was concerned that officials trying to help may be unfairly implicated in the case and so should proceed with caution. Nevertheless, after that exchange of correspondence, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the risk of involvement was seen as greater than the potential benefits of helping a UK citizen and a UK company.
Mr. Woodbridge also contacted me as his MP, and e-mailed me on 19 August. After making inquiries, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 21 August. As well as posting those letters, they were faxed to the Ministers' private offices and marked urgent. Receipt was acknowledged by the Foreign Office on 22 August. Several reminders and telephone calls from my office later, a substantive reply was posted from the Foreign Office on 2 October. In other words, an MP's request for help for a constituent unfairly held in a foreign country and suffering from serious health problems did not get a response for over five weeks.
478 The response from my noble Friend Baroness Amos claimed that consular staff had contacted my constituent's family at the time of arrest and remained in constant touch over the weekend. Mr. Woodbridge and his family have no such memory. The letter claims that consular officials made prison authorities aware of his diabetes and health concerns. Mr. Woodbridge has no such recollection and received no health assistance. The letter, patronisingly I feel, went on to advise me to tell Mr. Woodbridge to seek his own legal advice and provided me with a Foreign Office leaflet on consular services abroad
An example of the disparity between Baroness Amos's version of events and Mr. Woodbridge's relates to his health care. In her letter of 2 October, the Minister claimed that officials notified prison authorities of his health needs. In reality, after his release, Mr. Woodbridge approached a consular official to explain his need for treatment for diabetes, which she was not aware of, and was told to look in the "Yellow Pages". The Minister's letter was such an abject disappointment that I was loth to give it to Mr. Woodbridge, but I did so at his request. His response was dramatic—he concluded that as his Government had abandoned him he would instruct his lawyers to negotiate a sentence with the prosecution if he pleaded guilty to a crime that he had no knowledge of, had not committed and which was based on legal actions in his own country.
The response from the DTI to my letters was stranger still. It replied more quickly, writing back on 13 September—a delay of three weeks—but the letter from the assistant private secretary said only that it was a matter for the Foreign Office, so my letter had been sent on. The Minister will recollect from what I said earlier that that was the response from the Department that had genuinely tried to help initially. A Minister's office clearly did not even bother to investigate what work officials had undertaken despite the fact that I had supplied it with copies of correspondence showing that the DTI had been involved. Ironically, in the e-mail between a DTI official and his colleague that was wrongly sent to Mr. Woodbridge, the author said that his DTI colleague should not get involved but advise Mr. Woodbridge to contact his MP, who would contact Ministers, who would then instruct officials. But when Mr. Woodbridge did contact his MP, and the MP contacted Ministers, officials batted the letter to the Foreign Office and did not even show it to Ministers. Although my staff contacted that private ministerial office and asked it to look at the case again, I have still have had no response.
In any event, the matter proceeded to trial, and Mr. Woodbridge—his health insurance having run out and having lost all hope of Government intervention—pleaded guilty. Fortunately for him, the trial judge was a man of independent mind. He immediately said that he was not minded to give a custodial sentence—he could have given up to two years—and would tailor his sentence to allow Mr. Woodbridge to return home. Subsequently, he was asked to pay a $7,000 fine and given three years' unsupervised probation. He is now recovering at his home in Minster, although he will never be able to return to the United States
After Mr. Woodbridge decided to plead guilty, I again wrote to Baroness Amos. She has responded in greater detail giving an account of efforts by consular 479 staff to assist, including telephone records to show that consular staff made calls to the UK over the weekend of the arrest. I can only say that the recollection of events by Mr. Woodbridge and his family remains very different from that of those who briefed my noble Friend. For example, in the letter of 2 October, she claims that it was her officials who notified the family of the arrest and in her letter of 4 November cited the phone records to support her case. In fact, the only substantive call to the UK shown on those records was a call that was not initiated by consular officials as my noble Friend implied. It followed a call by Mr. Woodbridge's son, who had by then already heard of his father's arrest from the Minneapolis probation office. It was Mr. Woodbridge's son who first rang the consulate in Chicago to ask if it could help. The officer said that he would investigate and call back, and it was that call that is on the phone records. Worse still, that officer reported that his boss was aware of the arrest, and had intended to leave a report on it, but had gone away for the weekend and forgotten.
I accept that during that phone call Mr. Woodbridge's son told the officer of his father's diabetes and a call was then made to the prison, presumably to relay that fact. Unfortunately, nobody appears to have checked that the US authorities acted on this information—they had not.
I understand that, at times of strain, people may not recall all the various contacts that they have received or even appreciate fully when genuine efforts are being made to help. Certainly they will not know of efforts behind the scenes. The lesson that should be learned in a case such as this is that consular officials should err on the side of overkill in contacting people and always drop them a note to confirm and clarify important issues after the conversation.
Mr. Woodbridge committed no UK crime, and it is still not clear what US authorities suspected was going on. However these events are viewed, the US has acted extraterritorially and the UK Government appear to have allowed them to get away with it. Consular officials and others gave an inadequate service to my constituent, and seem to have acted from the view that he was seeking free legal advice or health care, which he was not. Finally, Ministers' offices acted weakly and deplorably slowly to my request for urgent assistance—more than five weeks for a substantive reply to an MP in a case such as this is unacceptable.
Mr. Woodbridge realised that the Government could not get involved in the US judicial system; he did not expect us to send a gunboat to release him. He did however expect sympathy, support, clear advice and possibly some help through diplomatic channels. As his MP, I did not expect us to break off relations with the United States or the Prime Minister to pick up the hotline to President Bush, but I did expect a thorough and proactive response to a serious situation. I fear that we were both let down.
My hon. Friend the Minister will in his response not wish to be too critical of his officers, and I fully understand that. I just hope that in private, in the next day or two, someone in the Foreign Office will read my remarks, look hard at what happened and have thoughts on what should have happened
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on securing this Adjournment debate and on bringing the case to the attention of the House and those who read Hansard.
I have no doubt that the past few months have been a very stressful and difficult time for Mr. Woodbridge and his family. I welcome this opportunity to discuss the response of Her Majesty's Government in the months leading up to his conviction and departure from the United States.
I should say at the outset that I accept that we did make mistakes in this case. We must apologise for three in particular. First and foremost, we should have replied much more quickly to my hon. Friend's original letter requesting our help. Secondly, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office should have been more joined up in our work on the case. Finally, we should have communicated more effectively with Mr. Woodbridge about the work that the Government were doing on his behalf, and then followed it up with him after his release from jail to ensure his health requirements were being looked after. I shall address each of those issues in due course, but first I should like to say something about what we did do for Mr. Woodbridge
Mr. Woodbridge was arrested on 18 July 2002 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. His case was not brought to our attention until the following day when his lawyer contacted our honorary consul in Minneapolis. By that time, the authorities had already contacted Mr. Woodbridge's family, and his employer had in turn arranged for a lawyer. If we had been notified sooner of his arrest by the local authorities, we would have arranged, if Mr. Woodbridge had wished, for his family to be informed. Our staff members can make contact with next of kin only after they have been informed of an arrest. In this case, the United States authorities failed to notify us before notifying Mr. Woodbridge's family.
After speaking with Mr. Woodbridge's lawyer on 19 July, the honorary consul alerted the duty officer in Chicago, which is our nearest consulate. The duty officer in Chicago tried several times to speak to Mr. Woodbridge directly, but the US authorities refused permission. Although it was not an ideal situation and consular officials would have preferred to speak to Mr. Woodbridge directly, the duty officer received assurances of Mr. Woodbridge's well-being from his lawyer as well as from staff at the jail. We have since complained to the US State Department regarding that denial of access.
The duty officer then contacted Mr. Woodbridge's son Andrew. It was through the contact with Andrew Woodbridge that the duty officer learned that Mr. Woodbridge has dietary diabetes. Mr. Woodbridge may dispute this, but the duty officer immediately alerted prison authorities to his medical condition. I am told by officials that there are telephone records from Chicago to support that communication. In addition, the duty officer was told of claims by jail authorities that Mr. Woodbridge himself would have had an opportunity to inform them of his medical condition at the time that he was taken into custody.
481 On 19 July, the consulate was informed by the US Customs Service that Mr. Woodbridge was to be charged with conspiracy involving the export of US goods to Libya. The authorities planned to transfer him to the jurisdiction of the Federal district court of the southern district of Illinois, where the goods were manufactured. Around that time, Mr. Woodbridge's employer contacted our honorary consul in Minneapolis, where Mr. Woodbridge was being held. The employer sought our honorary consul's advice as to where to engage legal counsel for Mr. Woodbridge—Illinois, where the case was likely to be heard, or Minneapolis, where Mr. Woodbridge was initially being held.
The honorary consul used his personal network of contacts to arrange a conference call between himself, the former US Attorney for Minnesota, and the former US Attorney in the central district of Illinois, both leading private legal practitioners. He gathered their views and passed them on Mr. Woodbridge's employer. Here, the honorary consul was extremely helpful in using his access to those lawyers to get free advice for Mr. Woodbridge.
On 23 July, Mr Woodbridge went before the court in Minneapolis and bail was set at $50,000. His employer paid the bond on 30 July and Mr. Woodbridge was released. On 5 August, Mr. Woodbridge contacted our consulate in Chicago and informed staff there that he was living at his employer's expense in southern Illinois and had retained local counsel.
During his telephone call, Mr. Woodbridge asked whether the consulate could recommend a doctor specialising in diabetes. Unfortunately, although we maintain doctors lists in some places in some countries, I regret to say that we do not do so for many countries in which health care is generally good and readily available, such as the United States, nor do we generally maintain doctors lists for very small municipalities, such as the one in which Mr. Woodbridge was residing. The vice-consul, therefore, advised Mr. Woodbridge to seek a referral at the nearest hospital. The vice-consul also suggested that Mr. Woodbridge might consult the local yellow pages where doctors are listed by speciality. I know that Mr. Woodbridge found this approach unsatisfactory.
On 17 August, Mr. Woodbridge sent an e-mail to the Department of Trade and Industry. I must say that the Government failed Mr. Woodbridge twice with respect to that communication. First, a DTI employee intercepted Mr. Woodbridge's message and forwarded it to a colleague, along with his opinion that the issues raised by the case were best left to Mr. Woodbridge's legal team. He advised that the DTI should not get involved. Unfortunately, the employee mistakenly sent his reply not only to his colleagues at the DTI, but to Mr. Woodbridge. He apologised to Mr. Woodbridge the next day. The entire incident was wrong and I accept that it should not have happened. I apologise to Mr. Woodbridge for what happened.
The second failure came when the same e-mail was forwarded to the Foreign Office under cover of a letter from my honourable Friend. We took far too long to respond to that letter, part of the time being spent coordinating our response with the DTI. I regret very much that that happened. However, Mr. Woodbridge was already on bail and living in his apartment in Illinois 482 at the time of his first writing. Our tardiness, inexcusable though it was, had no bearing on Mr. Woodbridge's situation.
On 27 August, DTI officials met Mr. Woodbridge's employer and contacted the embassy in Washington. The DTI wanted to investigate whether the US may have acted extraterritorially in its pursuit of Mr. Woodbridge. In addition to seeking advice from the Department's lawyers, the DTI also asked the embassy to seek legal advice from US lawyers specialising in export control laws and extraterritoriality. Following that, officials at the embassy contacted Mr. Woodbridge's lawyer and the US Department of Commerce to discuss their detailed concerns. On the basis of these discussions, and on the advice of DTI and US lawyers, the DTI decided on 6 September that US actions were not extraterritorial. I know that there is some disagreement about that, but that is certainly the position that the DTI reached. Therefore, the Government would be unable to intervene. Mr. Woodbridge and his employer were informed the same day.
§ Dr. Ladyman: Iam grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Mr. Woodbridge's company would never have even been involved at that stage if Minequip had not specifically asked for the goods to be shipped via Sigma. It seems most likely that Minequip was asked to do that by the US authorities, which wanted to implicate not only BIB, but Sigma. Surely, that is evidence of extraterritorial behaviour.
§ Mr. O'BrienI recognise that my hon. Friend has a view about that. No doubt, Mr. Woodbridge's lawyers also have a view. All I can say is that we have taken legal advice and have an alternative view about where the law stands. Our view remains that the US actions were not extraterritorial. While I accept some of what he says about the behaviour of Mr. Woodbridge not being unlawful in this country, the situation is somewhat different in the US context. Our view was that the US actions were not extraterritorial and were lawful in the context of US law. Therefore, we were not in a position to intervene. Our consular staff were not fully aware of all the discussions at the time, however, and I accept that the Government could have been more joined up in addressing the issue.
Since then, officials have spoken to Mr. Woodbridge several times. On 8 November, he pleaded guilty to the charges against him and received three years' probation. It was stipulated in the plea agreement that Mr. Woodbridge depart the United States voluntarily by 13 November.
I am aware that Mr. Woodbridge is not happy with the way in which his case has been handled. We are always disappointed when that is the case and we aim to provide an effective consular service. The main role of the consul is to advise on local practice and ensure that UK national detainees are treated no worse than nationals from the country in which they are held.
Mr. Woodbridge was convicted of a crime in the United States, and as far as we can ascertain, his treatment was no worse than that which an American would have received in the same circumstances. As I said, there were certainly things that I would change 483 about the way in which we handled the case. I am concerned about the time that it took to respond to Mr. Woodbridge's initial e-mail from my hon. Friend and about the fact that we should have been more joined up with the DTI in our various roles. Most especially, I regret very much that Mr. Woodbridge thinks that the Government did not care about him or his case.
There is clearly a limit to what consular staff can do in particular cases and circumstances. There are a limited number of staff and often a large number of demands. Sometimes, expectations are greater than can be delivered in practice, but in this case, I am satisfied that in some respects, although not all, the response was not all that I would have hoped for. Substantial help was given to Mr. Woodbridge in the handling of the case and a number of officials did their best to be as helpful to him as possible. However, in other instances, the response was not all that he had a right to demand from his Government. That is why I have set out clearly our apologies where we felt them appropriate. I hope that Mr. Woodbridge will feel that that is the sort of response that he would have expected. Where we have got it 484 wrong, we have apologised and where we feel that the criticisms have been harsh, I hope that we have given an explanation.
§ Dr. LadymanI am very grateful to my hon. Friend for offering that apology to Mr. Woodbridge. I think that it was the right thing to do and it is very magnanimous of him to do it on the Government's behalf. The one piece of advice that I might offer, if he does not mind, is that during that five weeks when I was waiting for a response, if somebody had picked up the telephone and said, "We are working on it and doing our best", an awful lot of the problems could have been headed off.
§ Mr. O'BrienI am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. All I would say is that most officials are doing their best throughout the working day, and they work enormously hard under a great deal of stress and pressure. Sometimes, the stress and the pile of work can mean that the sort of telephone call to which he referred is not made, and I appreciate that in individual cases such this one, there can be a price to be paid by the constituent.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.