To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Pakistan regarding the protection of the rights and the welfare of former Prime Minister Imran Khan during his imprisonment, including access to medical care and family visits.
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation in this debate. It is my first QSD debate so I will be looking to the Deputy Chairman of Committees—I assume that we do not make reference to the Woolsack—to correct me if I make a procedural faux pas. I can promise that there will be no cricketing analogies because they are definitely beyond me.
This debate is a serious matter. It follows a recent Question in the Chamber on which several noble Lords who are present here today contributed. Since then, Ministers have helpfully provided Written Answers confirming that His Majesty’s Government expect the Pakistani authorities to respect fundamental freedoms, including due process, humane detention and access to appropriate medical treatment for all detainees, including the former Prime Minister, Mr Imran Khan.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington for participating in this debate and sharing the Government’s current thinking on this issue. Our debate is timely in view of the deteriorating welfare of Mr Imran Khan. The concerns span his health, conditions of detention and access to medical care, the denial of family access and recurring questions concerning access to justice. In raising these matters, I recognise that noble Lords can range more widely in the breadth of their concerns than Ministers may. For example, Ministers have confirmed in recent Answers that they would not advocate for specific medical arrangements for an individual prisoner in another jurisdiction, however distinguished they might be.
However, this debate allows the airing of overlapping concerns that span health, welfare and access to justice and the relationship of those concerns with universal principles concerning human rights, due process and democratic concerns. Other more expert noble Lords may comment on the wider context, but I simply note that, in any country, the recurring incarceration of political opponents generally damages rather than advances the cause of democracy. This debate is not to endorse any one politician’s programme or past record. Mr Imran Khan, like every politician—past, present and future—has made mistakes. This is about making our voice heard around the concerns that have been raised.
In 2024, Amnesty International, reviewing Imran Khan’s conviction and sentencing, found several fair trial violations that resulted in arbitrary detention and denial of his right to liberty. Worryingly, it
“noted a pattern of weaponization of the legal system to keep Imran Khan under detention and away from all political activity”.
The former Prime Minister is not just any other prisoner: the issue before us is that countless people of good will who care about Pakistan and its future and democracy are deeply concerned about Imran Khan.
Let me turn to three troubling specifics. The first is family access. Despite previous assurances, some of Mr Khan’s immediate family remain effectively barred from seeing him. I understand that his sons, Sulaiman and Kasim Khan, who are British citizens, have not been permitted to visit their father since December. They should have the right to visit their father in a way that does not impact their right to British consular protection. Moreover, such humanitarian access becomes more acute when a detainee’s health is in question.
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, for introducing this debate and the manner in which she did so. The sentiments she has expressed and the calls she has made are things with which everyone participating in this debate will align.
In the words of the Quaid-I-Azam, Muhammed Ali Jinnah:
“My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world”.
We take part in this debate with a deep sense of concern regarding the continued detention of former Prime Minister Imran Khan—a figure who, irrespective of political persuasion, remains entitled, like every citizen of Pakistan, to the protections of the law and the dignity afforded to every citizen under Pakistan’s constitutional framework. As has already been said, this is a matter not of politics but of principle. It is about whether the justice envisioned by the Quaid-I-Azam, Muhammed Ali Jinnah—rooted in fairness, compassion and the rule of law—should rightly be a factor that continues to guide the Republic of Pakistan.
Having served as the UK Foreign Minister of State with responsibility for our relationship with Pakistan, I dealt with all political parties. Indeed, I dealt directly with the former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, during his tenure as Prime Minister, as well as with the current Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif. They will both recall, as I do, that, whatever the issues—albeit ones of deep concern—and no matter how difficult they were, we would engage in a manner that was, despite differing views and positions, rooted in mutual respect. With these sentiments in mind, I wish to make three clear and what I regard as reasonable calls, grounded firmly in Pakistan’s constitution and legal traditions.
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, for securing this really important debate on the rights and welfare of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan. I am grateful to the House of Lords Library for its recent briefing and to Mr Nasir Mir, a senior member of Imran Khan’s PTI party, for his briefing note; I see that he is here with some of his colleagues. Both these publications have helped inform my deliberations over the growing international concerns.
Mr Khan’s detention, following his arrest in 2023 on charges that he denies, has become more than a domestic legal matter. It raises fundamental questions around due process, the rule of law and the treatment of political figures in a democratic system. The United Kingdom has long stood for the principles of fair trial, judicial independence and the humane treatment of detainees. These are universal values, not contingent ones.
Although Pakistan’s legal proceedings are rightly a matter for its own courts, there remains a clear expectation that international human rights standards will be upheld in all circumstances. It is concerning, therefore, that emerging reports suggest restrictions on Mr Khan’s access to legal counsel, family contact and adequate medical care. These allegations of prolonged isolation and deteriorating health would, if accurate, fall short of the standards set out in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners—or the Mandela rules, as they are often called—which guarantee access to healthcare, legal representation and regular contact with family.
In that context, I wish to raise a specific humanitarian issue that other noble Lords have raised: family access. The ability of Mr Khan’s two sons, Kasim and Sulaiman, to visit their father is not simply a personal matter but an important element of humane treatment. I therefore express my support for the granting of visas by the Government of Pakistan to enable these two young men to go and visit their father; that is what we would all want. I lost my father 30 years ago. Being able to go and visit your father, particularly when they are ill, is a basic human right that should not be denied to anyone. I support this Government impressing that upon the Government of Pakistan, because allowing this would demonstrate compassion and commitment to the basic international norms governing the treatment of prisoners.
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden for securing this important debate. I never had the honour of meeting Imran Khan but, like millions of other cricket fans, I am grateful for the pleasure that he has given us over so many years.
Ever since independence, Pakistan has sought to embrace democracy, but military chiefs have always lurked in the background. No Prime Minister has completed a full five-year term in office. This democratic deficit has had a negative effect on its economy, social stability, foreign investment, standard of living and security. Khan sought to turn the leaf and make a new start. He became Prime Minister in 2018 with support from the military chiefs. This was effectively a power-sharing agreement. The relationship with the military subsequently soured. In 2020, he was removed through a no-confidence vote in Parliament, which many say was orchestrated by the military chiefs.
In 2023, he was charged with corruption, treason and illegal marriage. He has denied all such charges. On several occasions, one of Pakistan’s high courts acquitted him. Each acquittal was followed by a barrage of new charges. The generals then installed new judges and, eventually, got the convictions they wanted. In 2024, his wife, Bushra Bibi, was also imprisoned.
Khan is seen now by many as a political prisoner. He has been incarcerated in a tiny cell in solitary confinement and denied access to newspapers and books. His family and friends have not always been able to visit him. His sons have been denied visas to see him. His sisters have occasionally seen him but under strict supervision. His health has deteriorated, and he has been denied appropriate and timely medical care. He has a loss of eyesight, which the authorities have allegedly ignored for years.
Taking a leaf from a recent open letter issued by former international cricket captains, I urge Pakistan’s Government to provide Khan with at least three things: first, immediate, adequate and ongoing medical attention from qualified specialists, of Khan’s choosing, to address his reported health issues; secondly, are humane and dignified conditions of detention in line with international standards, including regular visits by close family and friends; and, thirdly, fair and transparent access to legal processes without undue delay or hindrance.
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, for securing this debate.
As many noble Lords are aware, I was born in Pakistan. I have lived most of my life here in the UK, but I still have strong family connections in Pakistan. I like Pakistan, and I go back and forth very frequently to see my relatives. During my visits, I have the opportunity to meet politicians of all political persuasions in that country. When it comes to the internal politics of Pakistan, I always stay neutral. My aim has always been to do everything I can to strengthen the historical relations between Britain and Pakistan.
From the early days, Pakistan has faced enormous internal challenges, including large-scale migration, poverty, floods, earthquakes, terrorism and corruption. Externally, there have been three wars, and many battles and ongoing hostilities, on its eastern borders with India, and never-ending instability and wars on its western border with Afghanistan. Pakistan continues to bear the cost of Afghan’s problems, which, so far, have cost Pakistan more than 70,000 lives and billions of pounds in economic losses.
Despite this, Pakistan has been able to establish a powerful and respectful place on the world stage as a nuclear state. On the international front, Pakistan has successfully been able to balance its relationships with the US, Russia, China and Great Britain. Similarly, in the region, it has good relations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Türkiye, Bangladesh and Malaysia. Pakistan is one of the largest contributors to the United Nations peacekeeping missions around the world. More recently, Pakistan has shown its diplomatic abilities during the war between the US, Israel and Iran by offering mediation between the US and Iran in order to end the war by finding a peaceful solution. I sincerely hope that these efforts will bring an end to this deadly war in the Middle East, which is affecting the whole world.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden for securing this Question for Short Debate. The United Kingdom’s relationship with Pakistan matters profoundly because we share substantial history through both the Commonwealth and people. More than 1.5 million people in England and Wales identify as Pakistani. Many families here follow events in Pakistan closely, not because they are taking sides but because they care about justice, stability and the rule of law.
That takes me to the heart of today’s debate. The House of Lords is not the Court of Appeal, of course, so it is not for us to determine the merits of any international criminal charge. However, it is entirely proper for us to insist on some of the basic principles laid out in the ICCPR, which we all hold dear: due process; fair trials; and human treatment for everyone, whether they are prominent or powerless, including the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr Imran Khan. Concerns have been raised around Mr Khan’s detention, with reports of solitary confinement and restricted access to family. Serious questions have also been asked about his medical care, including for an eye condition through which, as his lawyers have said, he has lost much of the range of his right eye; many of the noble Lords here know better than me the condition it is in now.
In December, the UN special rapporteur on torture urged Pakistan to address reports of inhumane detention conditions, warning that prolonged solitary confinement can breach international human rights law and pointing to reported restrictions on access to lawyers and families, as well as to concerns around adequate medical attention. I recognise that the Government have said both in Written Answers and from the Dispatch Box that, although, the Pakistani judicial process is a domestic matter,
“we are clear that the Pakistani authorities need to respect … the rights to a fair trial … humane detention and access to appropriate medical treatment”—[Official Report, 25/2/26; col. 607.]
My Lord, I concur with everybody and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, on securing this debate, which is clearly timely. I want to address the specifics first. Regardless of the merits and demerits of the case against Imran Khan—I will come to that—his treatment is disgraceful and inhumane by any standards. Solitary confinement is never a good experience and rarely justified, and refusing family or legal humanitarian visits is, frankly, a disgrace. It is against fundamental principles. As I think everybody has mentioned, denying his sons the right to travel to visit him is a denial of fundamental human rights. They are British citizens, so we have some responsibility to support them.
I am afraid that all of that suggests that the regime is anxious to divert attention. I do not think that it will succeed in that. It does not want the situation to be highlighted, but this debate is proof that it will be highlighted. Imran Khan and his supporters have denied the charges, and it is quite difficult to get detail of exactly what they are and what the evidence has been, but that is really not the point. The question is whether there been a clear, transparent and fair judicial process. That matters to us as friends of Pakistan and as a member of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations.
I have visited Pakistan a few times over the years and throughout that time the state of democracy has always been fragile and, to be honest, very much at the behest of the military. Khan started out as the darling of the military. The Sharif family was discredited and put in prison. Now the Sharif family is back, Khan and his party are being harried out of existence, and he is being kept where he cannot rally a revival. It is difficult to avoid seeing politics behind that, regardless of the merits or demerits of the case. Over the years, we have seen a political leader executed, which was shocking to us at the time, we have seen another, of the same party, assassinated, others suspended, and military takeovers. None of this bears the hallmark of a lively and vibrant democracy, which is what we all want to see in Pakistan and indeed around the world.
My Lords, I believe that we are about to start voting soon, but I will make a start. I, too, want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Cleveden, for securing this important debate on a vital matter. I think the whole Committee is clear—and we certainly agree—that Pakistan must uphold its constitutional and human rights responsibilities in all cases. I am sure that we will agree that this principle applies in the case of Imran Khan as well. We share the noble Baroness’s concern about Mr Khan’s health, and we welcome that the Government regularly raise the need to uphold Pakistan’s constitution and international human rights obligations, as the Minister confirmed in response to an Oral Question on 25 February this year.
20 of 28 shown
The second concern is medical care. There seems to be agreement that Mr Khan’s medical condition has reached a critical stage. I understand that the Islamabad high court recently formed a medical board to oversee his treatment but rejected the request to include his personal physicians. His family have also indicated that they feel kept in the dark regarding his treatment protocols.
The third concern is fair treatment. Mr Khan recently indicated that his wife, Bushra Bibi, is being kept in isolation except for a rarely granted 30-minute weekly meeting. These allegations concern the rule of law and fair treatment. The targeting of family members to pressure a detainee is a violation of international norms.
Each of these three challenges, around family access, medical care and fair treatment, concerns the conduct of authorities in Pakistan, so His Majesty’s Government properly tread very lightly. I therefore turn my remarks to the Minister. On 25 February, she helpfully confirmed to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, that the UK consistently advocates for family access. That is very welcome. However, given the continuing obstacles surrounding access and the ongoing concerns about the former PM’s welfare, will the Minister help secure a meeting with the relevant FCDO Minister, Hamish Falconer, for a small cross-party delegation of Peers to explore humanitarian access for Imran Khan’s sons, to help secure the visas that would allow for full diplomatic protection, so that they can visit their father without risking their safety?
The Minister will also be aware of the concerns surrounding the detention of other current and former politicians. We look forward to learning how His Majesty’s Government can best support demonstrable improvements in human rights, specifically the humane treatment of political detainees, their access to legal counsel and the importance of not pressurising family members.
Time does not permit me to dwell—at least, not for long—on Britain’s shared history with Pakistan, its geopolitical importance and the hopeful aspirations of its young people. I have observed all of these things in my own visits to the country to deepen educational links and through my work with the British Council. Pakistan is a valued member of the Commonwealth and an important trading and security partner. It is a nation that is navigating the rising aspirations of many alongside a recently rising poverty rate. It is a country that experiences the impact of climate change, alongside border conflicts, and wrestles with the balance between military power and control by civilian authorities in democratic systems. The consequences of all these forces resonate globally, and we have a shared interest in the country’s lasting stability, prosperity and co-operation.
Finally, every participant in this debate is aware that the United Kingdom has deep people-to-people ties with Pakistan. Britain is enriched by 1.5 million British Pakistanis, friends and neighbours, many of whom take a close interest in these matters. We all share an interest in Pakistan’s future, the welfare of its citizens and the upholding of democratic and judicial norms. So the ask today is simple: for the British Government to use their undoubted influence, where they can, to uphold the principles that this country holds dear—those of fairness, justice and compassion.
The first is the immediate provision of specialist medical attention. Article 9 of the constitution of Pakistan guarantees the right to life and liberty. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, the courts of Pakistan have repeatedly interpreted this to include the rights to health and to access to medical care. Where a detainee’s health is in question, the responsibility of the state is not discretionary; it is absolute. Ensuring that Mr Khan receives an independent specialist medical assessment, including with a professional medical practitioner of his choice, is not an act of concession but a constitutional obligation.
Secondly, as I called for in our debate on a Question in the main Chamber, Mr Khan should be granted full and humane access to his family—specifically, the granting of visas to his sons, Kasim and Sulaiman, who are both British citizens. Article 14 of the constitution of Pakistan confirms the inviolability of the
“dignity of man and … the privacy of home”.
Family contact is not merely an emotional consideration; it is intrinsic to human dignity and recognised in both domestic jurisprudence and international rights, to which Pakistan is party. Denying access to close family members, particularly in times of vulnerability—as is the case now—risks undermining the very dignity that the constitution seeks to protect. Facilitating visas for his sons is, in my view, a simple, humane and lawful step.
Thirdly, I call for Mr Khan’s transfer, under the conditions, to house detention. Pakistan’s legal framework, including provisions in its criminal procedure, allows for alternatives to incarceration where the circumstances justify it—in particular, where health, security or broader public considerations are at play. House detention would ensure that the legal process is upheld while mitigating concerns around welfare, transparency and proportionality. It would be a measured and lawful course, consistent with both precedent and principle.
Alongside these calls, I turn directly to the role of His Majesty’s Government. Will the Minister take forward, in addition to the request made by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, a direct request to the Foreign Secretary to use her full weight of office to facilitate access, particularly in supporting the granting of visas and ensuring appropriate consular and diplomatic engagement on humanitarian grounds? I should add that this is not without precedent. The UK FCDO has, in numerous instances, advocated for medical access, family visitation rights and due process; indeed, I engaged directly and robustly where there were concerns about the welfare and rights of detainees overseas. Whether cases involve British nationals or broader human rights concerns, Ministers have rightly raised individual cases directly with foreign Governments, underscoring the fact that humanitarian considerations sit firmly within the remit of the Foreign Secretary. Indeed, successive Foreign Secretaries have intervened quietly but effectively—that is the British way—where questions of health, dignity and access arise.
These are not extraordinary demands. They do not seek to interfere with judicial processes; nor do they pre-empt outcomes. Rather, they are rather a rational call to uphold the very standards that Pakistan has set for itself—standards rooted in its constitution, its courts and the vision of its founder. At a time when the eyes of the world are on Pakistan, when it is providing a glimmer of hope in the dark clouds of war, it will also need to reflect on how it treats those in detention, especially figures of such prominence. If it does the right thing, I am sure that it will further speak volumes about its commitment to justice, compassion and human rights.
In invoking the words of Muhammed Ali Jinnah as I did, we are reminded that nations are judged not by the strength of their rhetoric but by the fairness of their actions. Pakistan must demonstrate, through these three simple steps and with the constructive engagement of a friend and partner such as the United Kingdom, that justice remains not only an aspiration but a living reality.
This case does not stand alone. I express my concern regarding the continued detention of the former Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, who is a senior political figure. His imprisonment, similar to that of Imran Khan, raises questions around transparency, due process and the consistent application of justice.
Beyond these high-profile cases, there are also troubling reports about what has been described as transnational repression. This includes allegations that relatives of overseas critics of the Government of Pakistan have been subject to detention, harassment or intimidation by the security forces of Pakistan. If substantiated, these practices would represent a deeply concerning extension of pressure beyond borders that undermines fundamental freedoms. These issues speak to not only individual cases but wider confidence in democratic institutions.
This debate is not about interference in the sovereign affairs of another state. Rather, it is about ensuring that our foreign policy reflects our enduring commitment to human rights and the rule of law. The United Kingdom has engaged with the Government of Pakistan on these matters, but it is right that we continue to do so clearly and consistently. The imprisonment of prominent political figures carries broader implications. Where there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, of political motivation or selective justice, public trust in democratic processes can be eroded. This makes it more important that legal proceedings are transparent and fair, and are seen to be so.
I suggest that His Majesty’s Government continue to pursue three key priorities: first, sustained diplomatic engagement with Pakistan on due process and detainee welfare; secondly, support for credible monitoring to ensure accurate information about conditions of detention; and, thirdly, the clear implementation of the United Kingdom’s commitment to democratic principles and human rights. I align myself with the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, and support her call for further engagement at ministerial level, or Secretary of State level as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, suggested. In particular, I support the proposal for a small cross-party delegation of Peers to meet the relevant Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister.
This House has a long tradition of upholding fundamental standards, not by dictating outcomes but by advocating principles. The treatment of any detainee must meet these standards, regardless of status or circumstances. Let us therefore send a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to support the protection of fundamental rights, the integrity of the legal process and the dignity of all individuals.
One must now fear for Khan’s life. Four of his predecessors have died from unnatural causes, one executed by a military ruler. If Khan were to receive humane treatment, it could start a new chapter of reconciliation, peace, compassion and freedom in Pakistan. It could end the vicious cycle where one set of rulers seeks revenge on the previous ones and help facilitate economic and social development.
The UK Government pride themselves on being champions of democracy and human rights and have condemned political imprisonments in China, Iran, Russia, North Korea and elsewhere. However, their response to Khan’s imprisonment has been muted. They need to rise above the weight of arms and trade deals. Pakistan is a member of the Commonwealth and receives financial aid from the UK. It is a member of the United Nations and its Human Rights Council. The UK Government must use these and other platforms to urge the Pakistani authorities to treat Khan with dignity and compassion. He is now old, sick and frail, and he should be allowed to spend what is left of his life with his family and friends.
However, at home, Pakistan faces challenges around weak economics, law and order, justice, corruption and political instability. Many reputable human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have criticised the elections process of 2024 and the treatment of political workers, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan. It has been alleged that Imran Khan has been denied free access to his lawyers and family members and has been held in solitary confinement. It is also alleged that he has lost 85% of his sight in one of his eyes. In my personal capacity, I raised these concerns with the Pakistan High Commission in London; I was told that Mr Khan has received eye treatment from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences in Islamabad and that his lost eyesight has been fully restored with glasses.
On the detentions of the PTI’s leadership, I am told that most of them are linked to the anti-state action of 9 May 2023 and are being dealt with according to the relevant sections of the law.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I stay away from Pakistan’s internal politics, but justice, fairness and access to health facilities are universal rights. Hence, in the light of these claims and counterclaims, I urge the Minister to ask the Foreign Secretary to raise these issues with the Pakistani Government: a fair trial, justice and medical care for Mr Khan and other political leaders; and free access to lawyers and family members, including Mr Khan’s British-born sons.
for all of their detainees. I welcome that clarity, as well as the assurance that Ministers and officials have raised these principles with our Pakistani counterparts.
I press the point that humane treatment is not just a slogan. It has a real-world meaning that applies to all, including Mr Khan. In practice, it means prompt access to appropriate medical care, regular and meaningful access to legal counsel and family contact that must not arbitrarily be interrupted. These safeguards matter in every country because they reduce the risk of ill treatment and injustice, especially to older detainees and anyone with serious health needs.
It also matters because what happens in high profile cases is felt far beyond one prison cell. Independent reporting from the Justice Project Pakistan, drawing on Pakistan’s prison data, has described a prison system operating at around 152% of authorised capacity—can noble Lords imagine what it must be like?—with about three-quarters of prisoners under trial. These pressures fall disproportionately on the vulnerable. The same reporting highlights more than 1,580 juvenile prisoners and notes that only four prisons are designed for women, with many women held in separate sections in male prisons. In such an environment, transparency and due process should be treated as the protections that they are instead of as a luxury.
Will the Minister say what further representations the Government intend to make to ensure that international standards are met in full for Mr Khan and other detainees? The test of a justice system is not how it treats those with power but whether it protects the rights and dignity of everyone consistently and without fear or favour. That is what we stand for quietly, firmly and as a friend of Pakistan.
I say to the Government of Pakistan that if they feel somewhat aggrieved by the criticism, they should listen to the specific requests that are being made, which are about common humanity and standards, and accede to the requests for humane treatment and access to friends, advisors and families, and to his wife, who is also being effectively drawn into this; they should be allowed time together. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, of domestic detention seems to me to commend itself as the right way forward.
This month, 47 members of Imran Khan’s party have been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and substantial fines. You have to ask a very serious question about that. That is an awful lot of people for a lot of severe detention, regardless of what the terms are. I also see that Pakistan’s trade status within the EU is coming under question and the European Parliament is questioning the EU’s relationship with Pakistan over this specific case. As has been said by everybody, the UK has a particular relationship with Pakistan. We were, to some extent, instrumental in the creation of the country and I think—I hope—that we have a genuinely positive view of wishing the country to succeed and wishing it well.
The Minister has answered these questions. We are asking for a further escalation at Foreign Secretary level of strong representations to the Government to accede to these requests to allow his sons to visit, to bring him and his wife together, to allow him to have access to all the circumstances and civilised conditions he should have and not to be in solitary confinement, and I hope, perhaps to consider domestic detention. A test of democracy is a peaceful change of Government without recrimination. Pakistan has not met that test very often, and I say that with sadness, not with anger.
As a friend of Pakistan, it is important that Governments who have been on the other side of this argument understand the points that have been made and recognise that they have to raise their standards, show compassion, show tolerance and deal with justice. If there are things to be dealt with, they should do it openly, transparently and in accordance with the law that everybody can see and observe. That is not what is happening, and we have to express our sadness about it. We ask that the UK Government use all the good offices they can to persuade the Government of Pakistan to, at least, accede to these civilised and fair humanitarian requests, so that, regardless of the wider issues, not just Imran Khan but his followers are not treated in a way that most people would regard as inconsistent with good, democratic human rights. That is all we ask; it is not a lot to ask.
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan · Order Paper · Order Paper