UK Nationals Imprisoned Abroad

Debate between Tom Brake and John Penrose

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Brake]

At the risk of repeating myself, the information I have is that the Yemeni authorities clearly know that he was taken from there but have stated that they believe that no judicial process was followed to extract him in that way. That would imply that if there was an extradition treaty in place between Yemen and Ethiopia, it was not actually used as a means of extracting him from that country. Perhaps when the Minister responds he will give us some more detail on what he believes the position to be.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and is laying out his case carefully and strongly. I congratulate him on securing this important debate. May I pursue this question? He has already stated that Mr Tsege may quite possibly have been the victim of a crime or of several crimes. If no judicial process was applied in the rendition from the airport in Yemen, does that imply that there could have been an official but non-judicial process? Could there have been some sort of official complicity among Yemeni authorities as well, in which case should we be aiming fire at their potentially having committed crimes against Mr Tsege?

[Tom Brake]

That is a very helpful intervention, and the hon. Gentleman has highlighted an area that requires pursuing. When we had the meeting with the Ethiopian ambassador yesterday, he implied that in the past there have been arrangements between the Yemenis and the Ethiopians and that perhaps those arrangements were used, as opposed to there being a formal extradition process. Yes, we might well want to question the involvement of the Yemeni authorities.

What is clear is that had the Ethiopian Government wanted to extradite Andy lawfully, they could have made a request for his extradition from the UK authorities—although I understand that there is currently no formal extradition agreement between the UK and Ethiopia. I believe that no such request was made and, as far as I am aware, the UK Government have been provided with no evidence of Andy’s so-called terrorist activities. I understand that the UK Government are apparently being encouraged to follow—this is the description from the Ethiopian ambassador—the open trial process that found Andy guilty in absentia as their means of obtaining information, rather than necessarily expecting it from the Ethiopian Government directly.

The Ethiopian Government have publicly confirmed, on a number of occasions, that there are no legal options open to Andy. Most recently, at the meeting yesterday it was confirmed that he cannot appeal his sentence because he was absent from his trial. A plea for clemency to the Ethiopian President may be possible, and I look forward to some information that we were offered at that meeting about how such a plea could be initiated.

I maintain that access to a lawyer will not achieve justice for Andy. By continuing to pursue an unworkable strategy, the UK Government are not living up to their duty to protect British citizens facing the death penalty overseas. On that point, we got a degree of reassurance from the Ethiopian ambassador that Ethiopia does not apply capital punishment, although he did set out a couple of exceptions to that rule, so it was half reassuring and half not.

Andy’s most recent consular visit also highlighted continued failures by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in handling his case. For instance, although the FCO has continuously claimed, and represented to a UK court, that Andy could call his partner and children whenever he wanted to, the prison director informed the ambassador at the latest visit that

“prisoners cannot make phone calls.”

That, too, was confirmed in the meeting with the Ethiopian ambassador yesterday. Thus Andy is not—and, as far as I am aware, never was—able to call his family, so his children face the third Christmas in a row without any contact with their father. He does not even have a pen and paper to write them a Christmas card. Given the fairly significant failures in this case and the way that it has been managed, I hope that the Minister will be willing to conduct a meaningful review of the Government’s approach, because I do not think that approach is delivering.

What more can be done to help Andy and Nazanin? Although hundreds of thousands of people have supported petitions and campaigns, in partnership with the tireless advocacy work of groups such as Reprieve and Amnesty International, ultimately it is the Ethiopian Government, the Iranian Government and our Government who have the most influence and leverage. To the Ethiopian authorities, I make a simple plea: let Andy make that call before Christmas. He has had two years without contact with his wife or children, and that can stop very easily if the Ethiopian authorities permit it.

To the Iranian authorities, pending Nazanin’s release, which I hope will be soon, I say: allow for visits for her young daughter involving extended contact, and in a suitable environment, taking account of the best interests of the child in line with the provisions of the convention on the rights of the child, which I am pleased that Iran has ratified. There is not time to raise the case of Kamal Foroughi in any detail, but I hope that other Members may refer to his case as well.

What should the UK Government do at this point? They need to call openly and loudly for Iran and Ethiopia to free Nazanin and Andy respectively. I believe that the weight of the Prime Minister calling for their release would be significant and set a strong tone that the UK does not stand by and let its citizens face appalling treatment, trapped in prisons, thousands of miles from their homes. We have seen the US and Canada—and the UK previously—secure the release of their citizens after publicly raising calls for the release of their nationals imprisoned unlawfully abroad. Yet the UK Government appear reluctant to do the same now.

The FCO stresses the work that it does for the families of Andy and Nazanin, and says that it repeatedly raises their cases with the respective Governments. However, all it appears to be doing is acquiescing in the dubious charges imposed on them by saying that it will not get involved in the legal system of another state, despite those legal systems being grossly, and so obviously, unfair. I am familiar with that argument—all too familiar with it—in relation to the constituency case of Neil Juwaheer, whose parents believe was murdered by Brazilian police in a Brazilian police station.

If we were to get just one official public statement from our Prime Minister unequivocally calling for Andy’s and Nazanin’s release, and for the release of other British nationals imprisoned unlawfully abroad, that would convince the public that our Government will stand up for their citizens and would send a strong and unequivocal message to foreign Governments. My call is for the Prime Minister, the Government and the Minister to give Andy and Nazanin’s families some seasonal comfort over the next week—pick up the phone, issue a statement and call for their release.

EU Referendum Rules

Debate between Tom Brake and John Penrose

Monday 5th September 2016 Westminster Hall

[John Penrose]

I completely agree. The outcome, although definitive—there was an overall majority of well more than 1 million votes—was still uncomfortably narrow, and 48% of the population were on one side. Democratically, we therefore need to go through a healing process as an entire country to repair that damage, but wishing that it were otherwise will not change the historical fact of the result and the fact that the rules were as fair as Parliament could make them after extensive debate.

The referendum, with those rules, was intended to put the question of our EU membership to rest once and for all. If it had been an unfair referendum and the rules had been slanted in one direction or the other, it would have completely failed in that central aim. Far from drawing a line under the issue forever, we would have faced a “neverendum,” with both sides banging on about Europe for decades. I doubt that anyone could invent something more divisive, distracting or, frankly, soul-destroyingly boring if they tried.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Does he think that the outcome of the referendum will ensure that people do not bang on about Europe for the next five or 10 years?

[John Penrose]

I will respond merely by saying that I hope that the period of banging on about Europe will be much shorter than it would be if we had more referendums about it in the future. I had thought that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) wanted to intervene—[Interruption.] Clearly there were two minds with but a single thought.

The danger of requiring a super-majority is that it would be seen as a coded attempt by disappointed pro-Europeans to rerun the original referendum because they did not like the result. I supported the remain campaign, but even I think that a rerun would be a huge mistake. Whichever side we were on at the time, I hope that all of us here are democrats first, last and always.

[John Penrose]

I completely agree. Every time either the Lib Dems or the Labour party win a local council by-election, I am convinced that everyone has taken leave of their senses, but as a democrat I respect the result and accept it. I am sure everyone here would do the same, no matter which side of a particular debate they are on.

[Tom Brake]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to respond—perhaps this is not for this debate but for another—to the emails that we have all had from people who have called for an independent body to assess the claims made during the course of a referendum campaign. Would he support that?

[John Penrose]

I worry about such proposals, because they could create a vehicle for making vexatious claims during a campaign as a way of trying to smear the opposition, whether they were making legitimate or illegitimate comments. The whole point about democratic campaigning in any election, as we all know well, is that if someone says something that we regard as an egregious slur on us, or our party, or on reality—it does not matter—the answer is not to run to the lawyers but to get out there and explain to the voters why what has been said is entirely wrong.

The country has voted to leave the EU. Whether we in this room individually agree with it or not, the decision has been made. If we now decide that we will not leave after all, and that we will hold another referendum instead, the outrage at an out-of-touch political class, deaf to the desire of the people who elected them, will be absolutely shattering.

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Debate between Tom Brake and John Penrose

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I will endeavour to tread carefully because, as I have mentioned, there are cases either in train or planned. I think that the fundamental political and democratic point must be this: the people have spoken, and whichever side of the argument Members of this House or those out in the rest of the country were on, it is now up to all of us to come together, to unite as a country and to make sure that we respect the democratic decision and the democratic will that have been clearly expressed.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Minister is an honest man, and therefore when he says, “Brexit means Brexit”, he knows that there are as many versions of Brexit as there are Members on the Government Benches. He needs to reaffirm parliamentary sovereignty and ensure that Parliament can vote on the Government’s negotiating stance, for instance on the vexed and dangerous question of what happens at the Irish border.

Iraq Inquiry Report

Debate between Tom Brake and John Penrose

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)]

I start by joining the chorus of thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and to the many other hon. Members from all parts of the House—some of them have personal experience of serving our country in the armed forces—who contributed to the debate.

This issue could not be more serious or important. As colleagues from all parts of the House have said, this is about how and whether we take the country to war, and whether we have done that in the right way in the past. Even for those, like me, who were not here when the debate and votes were held, there could be no more important or serious issue for us to address. There is a thirst, not only in the Chamber but more widely across the country, for accountability, for closure, and for lessons to be learned.

I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going over the history of the war, but I will try to address the questions raised in the debate about what will happen to get the report out as soon as we reasonably can.

[Tom Brake]

Can the Minister give us an undertaking that the Government will implement any recommendations that come out of Chilcot to improve the transparency of the decision making involved before we commit the country to going to war?

[John Penrose]

It would be premature for any of us to prejudge the results of Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry, but I am certain that everyone—Members on both sides of the House and others more broadly—will look extremely carefully at the conclusions. I am sure that there will be a great many lessons to be learned.

In line with the timetable set out by Sir John Chilcot in his letter to the Prime Minister last October, to which a number of colleagues from all parts of the House have referred, we expect the inquiry’s report to be ready for national security checking in the week beginning 18 April—that is, some time next week. Once Sir John indicates that that is the case, the work will begin. As the Prime Minister promised, it will take no longer than two weeks.

Once that is done, the inquiry team will prepare the report for printing and publication. I should make it clear that at that stage, even when the national security checking process is complete, the report will still be in Sir John Chilcot’s hands and will not be released to the Government until everything is ready. The inquiry team has said that it will complete the remaining work as swiftly as possible, and Sir John Chilcot indicated in his letter to the Prime Minister last October that he expects publication in June or July this year.

I would like to reassure colleagues by providing a little more detail on what national security checking involves, because a number of concerns have been raised about what might or might not happen in that process. National security checking is a legal obligation and a well-established standard process for inquiries that consider sensitive material. It has been used in extremely sensitive reports, including those of the inquiries into Finucane, Bloody Sunday, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson, to name just a few. I am sure everyone will agree that the report must not compromise national security or breach article 2 of the European convention on human rights by putting the safety of individuals at risk. It is a limited process with a narrowly defined remit focused solely on ensuring that the inquiry’s report does not put lives at risk.

By making those extremely narrow and clear terms of reference public, I want to reassure everybody, in Parliament and elsewhere, that the process will not and cannot be used to redact or censor material that does not need to be secret, or that might prove embarrassing to Ministers or officials from the time covered by the inquiry. I am also pleased to inform the House that I understand that the inquiry team expects to announce a firmer publication date soon after the national security checking process is complete. That may answer some of the concerns raised by Members from all parts of the House.

Sir John made it clear in his letter to the Prime Minister that he needs to complete several further steps after security checking before he can hand the final version to the Government for publishing. As the House will be aware, the report is very large, with over two million words—about three or four times the size of “War and Peace”—and it will be accompanied by many hundreds of documents. I am told that, because of its size, it will take a number of weeks to prepare it for publication. That matter is under Sir John’s control. Sir John and his team have promised that they will complete the work as swiftly as possible.

I should also reassure the House that I have checked with senior officials in the Cabinet Office and been assured that nothing in the rules of purdah for the EU referendum could provide a reason to delay the publication of Sir John’s report once he delivers it to the Government. We will therefore publish the report as soon as it is delivered to us in its final form by the inquiry team, whenever that may be.

Short Money

Debate between Tom Brake and John Penrose

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend, who was involved with administering Short money and policy development grants before he came into the House, knows whereof he speaks. He is right that it is essential that we demand the same transparency for taxpayers’ money in all areas. That should include not just the cost of Spads, which is already transparent, but, equally, policy development grants and Short money.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I have no problem at all with the transparency that has just been asked for. The Minister is a decent man, but I think he has been tasked with doing someone else’s dirty business. What he is proposing is not actually about the cost of politics; if it were, he would also propose a cut in the budget for special advisers. This is actually about gagging the Opposition. Will he scrap this rushed consultation, abandon the attack on the scrutiny of the Government, and look again at how the cost of politics can be reduced by, for instance, chopping the budget for special advisers?

[John Penrose]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about me, and as a member of the Whips Office with him in the last Government, I reciprocate, of course. He is right that there are other ways of cutting the cost of politics. For example, we have in front of us proposals to reduce the total number of MPs in this House. I would not, therefore, want to limit what we plan to do just to Short money, but we should not let that be the enemy of doing the right thing on this issue either. Therefore, it is essential that we proceed with these proposals, and I hope we can rely on the right hon. Gentleman’s support.

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Debate between Tom Brake and John Penrose

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

As I said earlier, the cost of Spads has started to fall in the current Parliament. It is also important to remember that the total amount of Short money and policy development grant comes to dramatically more than the cost of Spads or anything of that sort.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Government, and the Conservatives, have form when it comes to rigging the electoral playing field. The Conservatives may have broken the law by spending more than the legal limit at by-elections. They are ramming through one-sided changes in the funding of political parties, while leaving in place their ability to raise huge sums from hedge fund managers. Now they intend to slash the Short money which ensures that Opposition parties can hold Governments to account. Can the Minister guarantee that the cuts will not be the final chapter in our transition from a multi-party state to a one-party state in which Robert Mugabe would be at home?

[John Penrose]

I do not know where to start in trying to rebut some of the absurd assumptions in that question, but I think that the short answer to all of them is “No.”