Treaty on the Functioning of the EU

Richard Drax Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Any change in the situation does not kick in until 1 December 2014, so in the interim there would be no change in the operation of the European arrest warrant. It will be necessary for us, as part of our discussions with the European Commission, to discuss the transitional arrangements. Of course we will want to ensure that, where we are opting back into a measure, the transition is as seamless as possible.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Would the safeguards that the Home Secretary has proposed concerning the European arrest warrant have protected my constituent, Michael Turner, who spent four months in a Hungarian jail without charge after his business closed owing £18,000—a case that in this country would have been handled in the small claims court?

[Mrs May]

I believe that the measures that I intend to put through in the amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill would indeed have dealt with that situation, because we would have made it clear that where the requesting state had not taken the decision to charge and to try an individual, that individual would not be extradited unless their physical presence was necessary in order to charge and try them. In many of the cases that we have seen, individuals would not have needed to be extradited to the requesting country.

Police

Richard Drax Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

May I begin by associating myself with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) about Paul McKeever? I had the pleasure—and it was a pleasure—of working with him when I was the shadow policing Minister, and he was a very effective representative of the federated ranks, and one of nature’s gentlemen. He represented many brave police officers—men and women—and we should never forget that in the context of funding settlements and reforms to pay and conditions. We honour and respect what police officers do each day on our behalf.

It is worth saying something about the headline figures for the police settlement that we are considering today. The Home Affairs Committee calculated that there was a real-terms increase of 20% in police funding in the decade up to 2008. That was something that the Conservative Opposition supported and voted for, and it had the result of making the British police force one of the best resourced in the western world. So when we look at reductions in spending—which we are doing in this settlement, as no one doubts—we have to see it in that context. It is coming off a very high base.

The figures for 2013-14 represent, in total central Government funding—that is specific Home Office grants, the police core settlement grant, the Department for Communities and Local Government revenue support grant and other bits of money—£7.8 billion, which is only a 1.9% reduction. These are not staggering figures, and I repeat that the reduction is against a backdrop of very high increases, which we supported, in the decade to 2008.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I pay tribute to Dorset police in my constituency for the wonderful work that they do. My hon. Friend was talking about the relatively small reduction, but Dorset is at the bottom of the heap and that small reduction over many years will actually be a massive reduction. If we had even the national police funding average per capita in Dorset, we would have an extra £16 million, which would mean an extra 50 officers on the beat. For us, even a small reduction has an enormous effect.

[Mr Ruffley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. My local constabulary area of Suffolk is not dissimilar to Dorset. People who were on the police authority and senior serving officers have made exactly the point that he has just made, which is why I am delighted to draw attention to the fact that the Home Secretary has announced a clear intention to review the formula that churns out the grants for each authority. However, she wants to do that once police and crime commissioners are bedded in, so that they can be consulted on how the formula can be tweaked. I would certainly hope—like my hon. Friend—that rural forces such as Dorset and Suffolk will get a better deal and a greater acknowledgement of the particular challenges of a police service that covers very strung out areas. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) is in her place, and I know that she endorses that point too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ruffley]

I do not accept that simple, direct correlation, as I shall explain.

In the 12 months to September 2012—the latest period for which crime survey figures are reported—we have seen an 8% decrease in overall crime against adults in England and Wales. We also have figures in that survey that show that since 1981 the lowest chance of being a victim of crime was in the 12 months up to that date. It should be a truth universally acknowledged that the effectiveness of a police force does not directly depend on the number of staff, but rather the way in which they are deployed.

We have already heard that the Home Secretary has scrapped central targets and energised the drive by chief constables to reduce unnecessary process—not just fewer forms, but a change in the way officers do things. There have been some encouraging examples of what the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)— I see him in his place—and I looked at: the so-called four-force pilot of a much quicker and sharper incident reporting regime by officers on the beat. We have seen a rolling back of statutory charging in respect of more triable either-way offences, giving more discretion to the charging sergeant in the station so that he or she does not have to hang around on the telephone or wait for a Crown Prosecution Service solicitor to fetch up to give the charging authorisation. There are other examples, but we know that as a result of this crackdown on bureaucracy, memorably reported on by Sir Ronnie Flanagan in the second half of the last Parliament, progress is being made. The results are already there for us to see.

The number of police officers in front-line roles is projected to increase by 2% between March 2012 and March 2013. The proportion of officers in front-line roles is expected to increase from the 83% we inherited in 2010 to 89% in 2015. I found another statistic through research. According to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—fairly objective data there, I feel—in March 2010, 17% of officers were in non-front-line roles, while the Government are forecasting that their announced policy measures could bring this down to 10% by March 2015.

[Richard Drax]

From my experience in the armed services, I know that the so-called backroom boys and girls who were members of the armed services in my day were very useful to call upon in times of trouble. While I quite accept that backroom boys and girls should be reduced to a certain degree, getting rid of all serving officers in those roles would mean that there is no reserve when, dare I say it, the proverbial hits the fan.

[Mr Ruffley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but we should resist the temptation to believe that a Home Secretary or a policing Minister in Whitehall can make decisions about the mix between uniformed back staff, who would be able to perform at short notice the kind of reserve and back-up on the front line that my hon. Friend describes, and pure civilians. This has been a long-running debate in the world of police reform, but we know that it is for the chief constable to decide and to make dispositions accordingly. Whether or not my hon. Friend accepts that, any Government would have to have in mind reducing the number of the uniformed work force in non-front-line activity.

Let me repeat the statistic. According to HMIC, in March 2010 17% of uniformed officers were in non-front-line roles. It is our intention that measures put in place to reduce that will mean that only one in 10 of uniformed officers are in non-front-line roles. I would have thought that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Delyn, who I thought was a worthy and dedicated policing Minister in the last Parliament, acknowledged that that should be a policy objective of Governments, chief constables and police commissioners.

I want to talk not just about reducing bureaucracy as part of police reform, but about getting more bang for our buck by doing more with less. That relates to what are undoubtedly difficult and controversial reforms to pay and conditions—the Winsor reforms. I remind the House that when we talk about funding settlements for the whole of the police service, a massive 80% of expenditure for most police forces in England and Wales goes on pay. Yes, we can mandate collaboration, which this Government are in the process of doing to make efficiencies in procurement, information technology, uniform, traffic and so on. But those and other heads of spending amount only to 20% of what a police force spends; 80% is spent on people. It therefore seems to me that it is incumbent on any Home Secretary, whether Labour or Conservative, to look afresh at how we can get a modernised pay system, crucially linking pay progression—the former Government indicated that they supported this concept—with higher levels of skills and with those who have undertaken higher professional training. This is not performance by results, but linking pay to the skills that officers have, paying less attention to progress up the pay ladder simply as a result of age.

The Winsor proposals are, of course, more complicated than that. Chief constables will have flexibility—and it is they, not Ministers in Whitehall, who will make these managerial decisions—and this will be done in conjunction with the locally elected police and crime commissioners. It will be for them to ensure they have the proper mix of ability within the uniformed ranks and they will also have to make decisions about civilianisation in regard to the allocations laid before the House today for each police force area, and make that money go further.

I close by saying something about accountability. This money will be voted for by Government Members, and I think the right hon. Member for Delyn suggested that the Opposition will vote against it. We must get away from the idea that Ministers will be held personally accountable. We vote for the money, and I want the message to go out that police and crime commissioners will have the prime job of driving through change to get more value for that money.

I know it is early days, but my experience so far of the elected commissioner in Suffolk, Councillor Tim Passmore, has been positive. He has put together a draft set of priorities; he has gone to the trouble of speaking to and meeting all the Suffolk MPs; and he has taken amendments to his first draft. My own view—I think most police and crime commissioners should look at this—is that a target should be set for the percentage of time that officers are visible to the Suffolk public. I think, too, that an objective should be set to move towards the 10% of uniformed officers—and it is only 10%—who should be on non-front-line activities, which as I outlined is the national objective, by March 2015. These commissioners should hold themselves to account by explaining—in my case, to the taxpayers of Suffolk, but to others in police force areas up and down the country—what they are doing to reduce bureaucracy, to get a higher percentage of officers on the front line and to ensure not only that there are more of them on the front line, but that during their shifts they spend a higher proportion of their time visibly out and about so that the public can see them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). He speaks with enormous knowledge about policing issues, and, as one who has attended many debates on the police grant —both in opposition and supporting the Government—he has always come to the Chamber with good and fresh ideas. It is a mystery to me why he is not in the Home Office doing the job, because he knows so much about it.

I must say that I was a little disappointed by the Minister’s opening remarks. I like the Minister, who has appeared before the Home Affairs Committee and who is always very robust, but in a debate of this kind there is no need for knockabout stuff, because we are dealing with extremely serious issues. I am still a bit puzzled about why the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice was not here to open the debate. He may have other important business to deal with, but I should have thought that he would be able to open a debate of this kind, as he has done in the past. Obviously a deal has been done on the Front Bench, however, and we are happy to hear the Government’s view.

I, too, was present at the memorial service for Paul McKeever, and, like the shadow policing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), and the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds, I want to express my appreciation for a life that was dedicated to public service. He was the policeman’s policeman. Hundreds of people turned up at Southwark cathedral on Saturday, including the Home Secretary—who read the lesson very eloquently—the shadow Home Secretary, the policing Minister, the shadow policing Minister, and the entire hierarchy of the police service. That was because Paul McKeever was very special as an advocate of what the service does throughout Britain. I think it right for us to start our debates by paying tribute to the work of the police force in this country.

Let me now make some remarks about the new landscape of policing, and about the reduction in the overall police grant and how it will affect some of the important institutions that the Government have created.

Let me say first that I am a great fan of what the Home Secretary is doing in reforming the landscape of policing. I am attached not to particular organisations, but to the services that are provided for local people. However, as we approach the halfway point in those changes in the landscape, I am not entirely convinced that at the end of the day we shall meet the Home Secretary’s original objective. When she started the process in 2010, her aim was to unclutter the policing landscape, but I think that we may well end up with more organisations rather than fewer.

Secondly, I should like to know what is happening to all this money. Of course there cannot be an immediate transfer from one organisation to another. However, the Home Affairs Committee has been studying the matter for the last two years, and in the course of our latest inquiry, into leadership and standards in the police, we have been looking at the organisations that are being abolished or reformed and the new organisations that are being created. I am afraid that the sums do not add up.

Evidence was given to the Committee by the former policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). When I asked him what the budget of the new National Crime Agency would be, the Home Office director of finance was sitting next to him, and he did not know what it would be. We do know that the combined budgets of the National Policing Improvement Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency amount to about £860 million. We also know that the budget of the National Crime Agency will be about £400 million. Yesterday, in his assured evidence to the Committee, Alex Marshall said he would have a budget of £50 million and a staff of 600.

I am not very good at maths. I will not reveal my GCSE grade to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you did better than I did. However, I think that we are about £315 million short. We are not talking about a few bob here and there; we are talking about a lot of money, and in the context of the overall reduction in the police grant over a number of years, it is really serious money. I am not trying to put the Under-Secretary of State on the spot—I do not know whether he will be winding up the debate—but it would be great if those sums could be confirmed, either today or in writing to me or to the Committee.

[Richard Drax]

Is not one of the downsides of all these budget cuts, particularly in constituencies such as Dorset, which contains vast rural areas, the temptation to bring all the officers in from the rural areas and to close local police stations? I think that there is a loss of confidence, not in what the police are doing but in their ability to do it, because there is no one out there.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Because of his profession, he knows about these issues. I am sure he is an assiduous Member who works tirelessly on behalf of his constituents. One of the public’s first concerns is whether they can see their local police officer—the bobby on the beat—walking around, and whether they can go to the local police station and report crimes and feel safe as a result. Not all of us can have a Dr Who-type TARDIS—I certainly do not—but it is important that we give that visibility in respect of both the physical building and police officers.

Where responsibility for counter-terrorism will lie is not yet settled. The Government are ring-fencing its £563 million budget, and I support that, but there is to be a new landscape of policing, and a decision needs to be made soon as to whether it will stay with the Metropolitan police or move to the National Crime Agency. My distinguished colleague from the Home Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), will correct me if I am wrong, but I think we recommended in one of our reports that it should go to the National Crime Agency, as counter-terrorism is a national issue.

European Convention on Human Rights

Richard Drax Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern, but there has to be a reference to exceptional circumstances. The way we are approaching it—setting out clearly the criteria that identify and describe the right to a private and family life—means that the exceptional circumstances will be far more limited than they have been up to now. As I hope he and others will understand from the detail I have given to the House, I have been going through every aspect of this carefully and setting out the expectations clearly. Therefore, I have every expectation that, in being able to look at those criteria and see what the public interest is in these matters, or how Parliament has defined the public interest, there would need to be truly exceptional circumstances indeed for someone to be allowed to remain in the UK outside the criteria. I have been clear that I have every expectation that this will have the impact we want it to have. If it does not, we will of course have to look at potential further measures.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I support the direction in which the Home Secretary is heading but have just one question. I might be jumping the gun, but given that so many countries practise torture—I think that she will reaffirm the position that prisoners are not sent back to such countries—what do we do in cases where we cannot send a criminal back to their country of origin because of this. As I have said, torture is used frequently around the world.

[Mrs May]

Under the convention, the question of whether someone will be subjected to torture relates not to article 8, but to article 3, I think—[Interruption.] I am getting nods from hon. Members. Of course, the European convention on human rights includes the statement that people should not be sent back to countries where they will be subject to torture, but the issue under discussion is one reason why, on a number of matters, we have negotiated with a number of countries throughout the world what is called “deportation with assurances”. This has been tested in the courts and enables us to deport individuals, with the assurance, which we have achieved through a memorandum of understanding, that they—individuals in those circumstances—will not be subject to torture when they are returned.

Abu Qatada

Richard Drax Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who in a nice way points out that I referred to our chairmanship of the Council of Europe when I should have referred to our presidency. I can absolutely assure her that we are putting considerable effort into the possibility of reform of the European Court and the way it operates. As my hon. Friend will know, the Prime Minister went to Strasbourg and gave a speech to assure people of the reasons why we feel that is necessary. We are, of course, working to bring the other 46 countries along with us in achieving what I am sure all Members want: appropriate reform of the Court.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

May I compare this case to that of my constituent, Michael Turner, who under a European arrest warrant spent four months in jail in Hungary, without charge, for alleged fraud? Does the Qatada case show that there is one rule for fanatical terrorists and quite another for British citizens?

[Mrs May]

No, I do not draw that lesson from this case. As my hon. Friend will know, we are looking at the various measures on which we have the block opt-out or block opt-in in 2014 in relation to European matters, which includes the European arrest warrant.

UK Extradition Arrangements

Richard Drax Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing this important debate. I had the privilege of being called to speak in a similar debate in Westminster Hall recently. I was thrilled by that, as was my constituent, Michael Turner, a young man who lives in South Dorset and who has for too long been the victim of an outrageous injustice under the European arrest warrant. As I understand it, and as I believe most hon. Members understand it, the EAW was meant to deal with terrorism and serious crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who is not in his place, talked about proportionality and I believe that when hon. Members have heard me finish my remarks about the case of Michael Turner, they will agree that the Hungarian authorities have shown no proportionality whatsoever.

Michael’s story begins in 2002, when he and a friend set up a marketing company operating out of Budapest. Regrettably, like so many other businesses around the world, it folded in 2004. The Hungarian authorities alleged that the two men acted fraudulently, leaving customers out of pocket to the tune of about £18,000—not a king’s ransom, as hon. Members may agree. The two men denied the charge of fraud and still do. In November 2008, after Hungary had joined the EU and Britain had signed up to the European extradition treaty, the Hungarian authorities came for Michael.

Here in the United Kingdom, Michael and his team fought against extradition until 2009, when Mr Justice Collins overruled his appeal in the High Court and ordered the two men to hand themselves over to the Hungarian authorities. Michael’s highly respected barrister, Hugh O’Donoghue, was “outraged” at the decision, believing that the European arrest warrant had been incorrectly interpreted and used.

On Monday 2 November 2009, Michael and his friend went to Gatwick airport voluntarily and were handed over to what I believe were Hungarian special forces—they were certainly police—who wanted to wear balaclavas to avoid being identified. I emphasise that the two men went voluntarily, and they were assured that as soon as they arrived in Hungary they would be allowed to call home. However, no such call was forthcoming, and they were refused bail on the ground that they would abscond—this, when they had gone to Hungary voluntarily. They were locked up, incommunicado, at a police station for three days before being moved to Veniga prison. Meanwhile, Michael’s family had to find a Hungarian lawyer to locate him. Even the Foreign Office did not know where he was, as was shown in an e-mail to me dated 4 November 2009, two days after Michael and his friend had been sent to Hungary. It stated:

“We were not initially aware of the case as the Hungarian authorities had not been in contact to notify us of Michael Turner’s detention.”

A judicial mess of scandalous proportions had begun, but far worse was to follow.

Locked up in this former KGB jail on the outskirts of Budapest, Michael was separated from his partner and friend, and placed in a small cell with three other men for 23 hours a day. Here he remained for the next four months, without charge. That in itself is surely a breach of his human rights—and how often in this country do we hear that expression? His initial request to call the consulate was refused, and the authorities had to be reminded that a call to the consulate was a right, not a privilege. He was allowed a one-hour visit per month and one shower per week—he had to basin-wash in his cell, in front of the other three men, for the other six days. Having reading material, and receiving and sending letters, was made difficult for him, and he was continually shouted at in a language that he did not understand. The appalling conditions soon began to wear on him, as I am sure we can all imagine. Soon, and inevitably, it was being suggested that if Michael pleaded guilty his stay in prison would be shortened, but he rightly and bravely stayed silent. Anyway, why should he plead guilty? In his view, he is innocent.

Behind the scenes, many people were trying to help Michael, and I must pay tribute to the Earl of Dartmouth, a UK Independence party MEP, who visited the prison, and Fair Trials International, which is doing what it can to help. It seems extraordinary to me, and I am sure to many Members in the House and to millions of people in this country, that when so many illegal immigrants cannot be extradited to their countries because of their so-called “human rights”, it appears that a British citizen can be handed over almost on a whim.

None of us is sure why Michael’s four-month incarceration in that hellhole came to an end, but on the morning of 26 February 2010, the door opened and Michael was free with no explanation, no apology and still no charge. In April 2010, he returned voluntarily and courageously to Hungary to answer more questions. He was told that police had interviewed more than 500 witnesses and it is calculated that it would take a year, at least, to cross-examine those people alone if the case came to court. Michael returned to the United Kingdom and still faces no charge. The case hangs over him and his family like the sword of Damocles, the emotional, physical and financial cost is hard to gauge and the distress has been absolutely appalling.

Unable to move on with his young life, Michael waits for Hungarian justice, so-called, to take its course, a course that has seen my constituent subjected to imprisonment, psychological torture—of that, he and I have no doubt—huge expense, unrelenting stress and, worst of all for Members of this House and certainly for him, an understandable loss of faith in this country’s ability to look after her own.

Hungary’s judicial system is not on a par with ours—far from it. It is primitive, bureaucratic and clearly unjust. In this country, someone is innocent until proven guilty, but it would seem that that is not the case in Hungary. The current extradition treaty is a complete mess. I agree with Members that some sort of treaty is needed, but reform is needed even more. I back the excellent motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton. I am deeply passionate about this subject and I am honoured to attempt to get freedom and democracy for my constituent, Michael Turner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I was actually agreeing with the hon. Gentleman in my remarks about cybercrime. I think it is legitimate for there to be a point at which we decide where is the right place for something to be tried. I believe that was the point that he was trying to make earlier, so I am grateful to him for his support for my argument.

Having dealt with the minor issues, I want to turn to the more significant ones, and first the operation of the European arrest warrant. It is true that there have been several cases in which the justice system in other countries included in the European arrest warrant has been far from ideal. Several hon. Members have mentioned those cases today. We are all mindful of the horrific experiences of some people who have been held for considerable periods for crimes that, as it turns out, they never committed. Incidentally, that is of course sometimes true in the United Kingdom as well.

Although I believe the EAW operates successfully in the main, there is one key matter that I believe needs to be addressed—the question of proportionality. Between 2004 and the end of March 2011, Poland accounted for 1,659 and Lithuania 355 of the UK’s 3,107 EAW surrenders. In part, that was because of the prosecutorial system in each of those two countries, but in many cases the warrants were for relatively minor offences. We believe that a proportionality test should apply. Indeed, I believe that the majority of members of the European Union would prefer to see some form of proportionality clause inserted into the provisions. It is important, of course, to bear it in mind that in many cases the UK imposes longer sentences than other countries in Europe, so there is a danger that if proportionality is introduced some countries will retaliate in the wrong direction. However, I believe that such a clause should be included.

[Richard Drax]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we left the EU, proportionality could be decided in this country, not by a massive bureaucracy?

[Chris Bryant]

Oh dear, no. Don’t get me started on that. In fact, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about the aetiology of how we got to the European arrest warrant. It was a Conservative Government who ratified our membership of the European convention on extradition in 1991, which has almost all the same provisions and applies to nearly all the same countries. Indeed, in 1993 it also included Hungary.

Secondly, I wish to mention prima facie rules. Under the 2003 Act, there is no prima facie rule in relation to EAW countries, known in the legislation as category 1 territories. However, in countries in whose criminal justice systems we do not have the same legal confidence, a prima facie rule still applies. That includes several Commonwealth countries covered by the London scheme and many others covered by bilateral treaties, such as Brazil and Argentina—the countries that were formerly quite happy to receive people from Nazi Germany without asking any questions.

There is no prima facie requirement for designated category 2 countries that share our respect for human rights and the rule of law, such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the US. The Opposition believe that that distinction is a proper one, even if we would constantly seek to urge reform and modernisation of legal systems in many EAW countries. Hon. Members have said that we cannot just hope that that will happen and that we need to try to ensure that it does. However, we would not do so by suddenly inserting a prima facie case for all EAWs. If we did that, we would be leaving the EAW. Some hon. Members might like us to do that—as well as leaving the EU—but it would be a mistake because of the effects it would have on the UK.

Extradition

Richard Drax Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) on securing the debate, which is a wonderful opportunity to put our cases. I am here to represent my constituent, Michael Turner, who lives in Corfe Castle in south Dorset, who has for too long been the victim of an outrageous injustice in the form of the European arrest warrant. Let us be clear from the outset that that legislation, flawed though it is, was meant, as I understood it, to deal with terrorism and serious crime.

Michael’s story begins in 2002 when he and a friend set up a marketing company operating out of Budapest. Regrettably, it folded in 2004. The Hungarian authorities allege that the two men acted fraudulently, leaving customers out of pocket to the tune of £18,000—not a huge sum. The two men denied the charge of fraud, and still do. In November 2008, after Hungary had joined the EU and Britain had signed up to the European extradition treaty, the authorities came for Michael.

Here in the UK, Michael fought extradition until 2009, when Mr Justice Collins overruled his appeal in the High Court and ordered the two men to hand themselves over to the Hungarian authorities. Michael’s barrister, Hugh O’Donoghue, was “outraged” at the decision, believing that the European arrest warrant was incorrectly interpreted and used. On Monday 2 November 2009, Michael and his partner went to Gatwick airport voluntarily, and were handed over to Hungarian special forces, who wanted to wear balaclavas to avoid being identified. The two men were assured that they would be allowed to call home as soon as they arrived, but no such call was forthcoming. They were refused bail on the ground that they would abscond—this when they had gone to Hungary voluntarily—and they were locked up, incommunicado, at a police station for three days before being moved to Veniga prison.

Michael’s family had to find a Hungarian lawyer to locate him. Even the Foreign Office did not know where he was, stating, in an e-mail to me, dated 4 November 2009, two days after Michael had been sent to Hungary:

“We were not initially aware of the case as the Hungarian authorities had not been in contact to notify us of Michael Turner’s detention.”

A judicial mess of scandalous proportions had begun, but far worse was to follow.

Locked up in this former KGB jail on the outskirts of Budapest, Michael was separated from his partner and friend, and placed in a small cell with three other prisoners for 23 hours a day. Here he remained for the next four months, without charge. That in itself is surely a breach of human rights—and how often do we hear that expression? His initial request to call the consulate was refused. The authorities had to be reminded that a call to the consulate was a right, not a privilege. He was allowed a one-hour visit per month and one shower per week—he had to basin-wash in his cell for the other six days. Having reading material, and receiving and sending letters, was made difficult for him, and he was continually shouted at in a language he did not understand.

The appalling conditions soon began to wear him down, as I am sure we can all imagine. Soon, and inevitably, it was being suggested that if Michael pleaded guilty his stay in prison would be shortened, but he rightly and bravely stayed silent. Anyway, why should he plead guilty when he thinks, and is sure, that he is innocent?

Behind the scenes, many people were trying their best to help Michael, and I must pay tribute to the Earl of Dartmouth, a UK Independence party MEP, who visited the prison, and Fair Trials International, which is doing what it can to help. It seems extraordinary to me—and I am sure to all hon. Members present and to millions of people in this country—that when so many illegal immigrants cannot be extradited to their countries because of their so-called human rights, it appears that a British citizen can be handed over almost on a whim.

None of us is sure why Michael’s four-month incarceration in that hellhole ended as abruptly as it did, but on the morning of 26 February 2010 the prison door opened and Michael was free, with no explanation or apology, and still no charge. In April 2010, he returned voluntarily and very courageously to Hungary to answer more questions. He was told that the police had interviewed more than 500 witnesses and that they needed more time for further investigations and interviews. It is thought that if the case does get to court, it will take about a year to cross-examine all the witnesses.

Michael returned to the UK and there was still no charge. This appalling case hangs over him like the sword of Damocles. The emotional, physical and financial cost is hard to gauge; the distress has been appalling. Unable to move on with his young life, Michael waits for Hungarian justice to take its course—a course that has seen my constituent subjected to imprisonment, psychological torture, huge expense, unrelenting stress and an understandable loss of faith in this country’s ability to look after her own. Hungary’s judicial system is not on a par with ours. It is primitive, bureaucratic and clearly unjust. In this country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton said, someone is innocent until proven guilty, but it would seem that that is not the case in Hungary.

Finally, I support my hon. Friend’s call for the Government to strengthen the protection of our citizens who are subject to extradition requests by implementing the recommendations of the report published in June by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) that the Backbench Business Committee will be pushing hard to get the issue into the main Chamber, so that we can continue to debate this crucial and essential point.