George Atkinson (Hansard, 2 June 1998)

§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)

Were you to have ventured on to the internet today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and looked up the website for Dubai, you would have been struck by the prominence given to golf and the images of spectacular golf courses in the desert—courses that were built by my constituent, Mr. George Atkinson, who is a successful business man from Rockbourne, near Fordingbridge.

Mr. Atkinson left Dubai in 1993, but returned in March last year to watch the desert classic golf tournament—a tournament that he initiated on a golf course that he built. He was arrested, and has languished in a Dubai gaol for the past 15 months.

It was more than a year before charges were brought against him. I have a difference of opinion with the Foreign Office about what constitutes a charge, but I hold to the view that no charge that would be understood as such by an Anglo-Saxon mind was brought against my constituent for more than a year.

My constituent has now been charged and was in court on Sunday afternoon, where his case was remanded until 20 June. I fear that the case will be adjourned again and dragged out, just as the bringing of charges was dragged out. However, that will not benefit my constituent by giving him more time to form his defence, because he has been detained in unacceptable conditions. He has been subjected continually to petty harassment and bullying. All sorts of arbitrary acts of petty power have been used against him to undermine his morale and his defence.

My constituent faces complex fraud charges, which require him to have access to documents. He estimates that he will have to look through 12 filing cabinets of documents that are pertinent to building a defence. He also, of course, needs access to his lawyer. The access that he is afforded is very restricted. His solicitor must apply to see him three days in advance, and is finally granted a very short time in an open police office where the business of that office proceeds around him. It is a most unsatisfactory and unacceptable set of circumstances.

I should like to put on record my thanks to the Foreign Office for its assistance. The consul general, Mr. Armour, has been outstanding in his assiduous efforts on behalf of my constituent to improve the conditions in which my constituent is held. I mean that most sincerely. I should also like to thank Baroness Symons for the time that she has given the case. She has read a large volume of correspondence and consented to discuss the matter with me on no less than seven occasions, three of which were lengthy meetings and two of which were attended by members of Mr. Atkinson's family and his legal representative in this country.

Although I am very thankful for such assistance, I have some differences with the Foreign Office. I was shocked to see a letter from the Foreign Secretary to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in which it was stated that my constituent, Mr. Atkinson, had been offered bail, but had refused it. My constituent has never properly been offered bail.

271 At the outset, the bail set was extortionate. My constituent offered as surety a Dubai business man of some standing, but the authorities in Dubai rejected him as unacceptable.

Subsequently, when my constituent's solicitor tried to reopen the question of bail, he was told explicitly by the attorney general in Dubai that he would not permit it because he wanted to protect the confidentiality of the investigation. Now that charges have been brought, bail has been set at £1.6 million, which is vastly more than the sum that is the subject of the fraud. It is well beyond the means of my constituent or any of his supporters or friends.

Bail is a key component due to my constituent's need to consult a large volume of documents. In his cell, he is allowed only very limited access to documents and his solicitor. He also wants the use of a personal computer. Were he on remand in custody in this country, he would not have unlimited access to and storage of documents, he would not have unlimited access to his solicitor and he certainly would not have the use of a PC in his cell. But, were he remanded on such a charge in this country, he would not be remanded in custody. He would be held on bail and would not face such problems.

The Foreign Office has taken the view that it is not proper for it to approach the authorities in Dubai on the question of bail, that the decision must be for the courts in Dubai. Mr. Al Tamimi, my constituent's solicitor in Dubai, informs me, however, that approaching the courts for bail is a complete waste of time. Any such request must be made to the office of the ruler because that is where, in effect, the issue is being decided.

It is for that reason that I sought this Adjournment debate. I want to bring it to the attention of the Foreign Office that my constituent is detained in Dubai not as a consequence of any crime that he has committed, but because of a political problem.

The charge against my constituent is that he aided and abetted a Government official in defrauding the Government of Dubai of a sum equivalent to £1 million. There was no such official. There was a British expatriate, an employee of the construction firm Laing. The evidence of that individual is the basis on which charges were brought against my constituent, but that evidence has changed substantially between two sworn affidavits. The key change—the second affidavit is the basis of the charges—is the financial arm twisting and pressure brought to bear on that individual. It is extraordinary that he has not been charged, and his wife comes and goes freely in Dubai, where she still runs a business. I expect the discrepancy between the two affidavits shortly to become the subject of a police investigation in this country into perjury.

Even if the allegations against my constituent had been true, he had an indemnity against any action by the Dubai Government. When he left in 1993, he offered his thriving companies—they were healthy, despite being owed £1 million by the Government of Dubai for outstanding invoices—in full and final settlement against any claim, and that offer was accepted by the Government of Dubai.

Mr. Atkinson returned to this country. He had not given up his title to the desert classic golf tournament, and when he filed an action in the United Kingdom's High Court 272 naming the Government of Dubai as co-conspirators in an attempt to take that title from him, he caused deep offence to that Government. My constituent's mistake—his contributory negligence—lay in his return to Dubai as a tourist to watch the desert classic. He was arrested, and he has been in gaol ever since.

My constituent is the victim of arbitrary power. Unless the Government address that issue, they will be of little more than marginal assistance to him. They should address this as a political question, not a legal one. They should bring their political influence to bear on the friendly Government of Dubai. The Foreign Office has done such things with similar regimes in the past, so why not do so for my constituent? I sincerely hope that our relations with Dubai remain friendly; it is with friendly states that we can exercise influence. If we cannot exercise such influence, there seems little point in having a Foreign Office at all.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I welcome the opportunity to record the actions of the Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our embassy in Dubai in this case. I shall outline our knowledge of the case to date, and shall refer to the help we have provided for Mr. Atkinson and his family.

To begin with, I wish to state in the strongest possible terms that the Government are fully committed to supporting and helping Mr. Atkinson and all British nationals who are detained or in prison overseas. We therefore respect the hon. Gentleman's strong commitment to his constituent. He has made his case powerfully. I am sure that his constituent's family will be pleased by that and respect the way in which he has acted on their behalf and on behalf of George Atkinson.

I shall offer an overview of the case. Many of the facts have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Atkinson lived in Dubai with his family for nearly 11 years. During that time, he ran a successful local landscaping, construction and design business known as Gulf Landscape Services. In September 1993, Mr. Atkinson was accused of unlawfully paying bribes to Mr. Steven Trutch. Mr. Atkinson admitted having made payments to Mr. Trutch, who was employed by Sheikh Mohammed, in return for the award of Government contracts. He claimed that these payments were part of normal business practice in Dubai, that they were openly paid and received, and that they were paid with Sheikh Mohammed's full knowledge. According to his UK lawyer, Mr. Atkinson was told that, unless he was prepared to transfer all the business, good will and assets of Gulf Landscape Services to the Government of Dubai and Sheikh Mohammed, criminal and civil proceedings would ensue.

In January 1994, Mr. Atkinson signed a settlement agreement between Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid and a number of businesses, agreeing to transfer all their respective businesses to the Government of Dubai and Sheikh Mohammed. In return, Mr. Atkinson was allowed to leave Dubai. He believed that that settlement was a full settlement of all claims against him.

273 As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Atkinson returned to Dubai on 26 February 1997 to watch the Dubai desert classic golf tournament. On the weekend of 1 and 2 March 1997, he was arrested by the Dubai police and has since then been detained in the public prosecution detention centre of the public prosecutor's building for paying commission and bribing Mr. Trutch. The embassy was told that the public prosecutor's office was giving special attention to the case because it was filed by the ruler's office.

On 3 March last year, the British embassy in Dubai was told by the authorities about the arrest of Mr. Atkinson. Consular staff sought immediate access and visited him the same day. He maintains that his detention is unlawful and that he is being held only for political reasons—much the argument of the hon. Gentleman. At the time of his detention, Mr. Atkinson was pursuing a £4 million breach of contract and conspiracy claim against the Dubai Government and the Professional Golfers Association tour in the High Court in London.

Since Mr. Atkinson's detention, his family and supporters and his Member of Parliament have claimed that he was being held without charge. We sought clarification from the Dubai authorities, and were told by the Attorney-General that initial charges relating to bribery and fraud had been laid against Mr. Atkinson and that, when investigations into the case were completed, he would either be finally charged and the case referred to court or be released.

The United Arab Emirates has a well-developed, sophisticated judicial system. Initial charges are a recognised formal step in the Dubai legal process. On 5 April 1998, formal and detailed charges were laid against Mr. Atkinson, and the case was referred to court. The first court hearing took place on 19 April, the second last Sunday on 31 May. It was attended by the embassy's vice-consul. The case has now been adjourned until 21 June.

The hon. Gentleman referred briefly to the prison conditions in which Mr. Atkinson finds himself. He is being held in police detention cells in the public prosecutor's building. He has access to a doctor and a dentist when necessary, and conditions are generally better than in Dubai's prisons. The food is reasonable, and I understand from our consular staff that Mr. Atkinson is relatively fit and well. He receives a special low-fat diet, he is allowed regular visitors and he has access to a telephone. The embassy raises with the public prosecutor any problems he has concerning prison conditions.

The hon. Gentleman made kind comments about the help provided by the Foreign Office, and it may be useful to him, his constituent and his constituent's family if I put that help on record. We have been in the most regular and frequent correspondence with Mr. Atkinson's family and friends. They did not believe that Mr. Atkinson had been charged and were unwilling to accept statements from the Attorney-General and a press announcement issued from the UAE embassy in London confirming that initial charges had been made and that copies had been sent to Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson's wife and daughter visited No. 10 Downing street and discussed the case with the Prime Minister's private secretary.

My noble Friend Baroness Symons, the Minister responsible for consular matters, has met the hon. 274 Gentleman, the Atkinson family and their UK lawyer twice, most recently on 22 April. She has taken those opportunities to explain the background to the case and to set out the action taken by the Foreign Office. In addition, the Atkinson family called on the Foreign Office consular division in London twice in the last year and spoke at length to the officials responsible for our interest in the welfare of Mr. Atkinson. We shall continue to do everything we can to ensure that Mr. Atkinson's rights are respected, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot interfere in the Dubai judicial system, just as we would not allow them to interfere in ours.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke kindly about the role of consular staff, and I shall ensure that his words are brought to the attention of the consul. The job of our consular staff in Dubai is to ensure that Mr. Atkinson has access to a lawyer; that he knows his legal position and has information about the legal and prison system; that he receives the same level of treatment as other prisoners and is not discriminated against because he is British and a non-UAE national; and that any medical problems are dealt with quickly. Any complaint of ill treatment is taken up immediately and, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, vigorously with the police authorities.

However—this is where there may be a difference in understanding between the hon. Gentleman and ourselves—our role is essentially an humanitarian one. Consular staff visit Mr. Atkinson regularly—there have been 13 visits so far. He also receives regular visits from his friends and lawyer, and is in regular contact with the embassy by fax and telephone. The consul general is in regular contact with Mr. Atkinson's wife and has twice in the past three months met a group of Mr. Atkinson's friends. Our staff can and do pass messages and money for prison comforts from Mr. Atkinson's family and friends. The welfare of British prisoners is a high priority for the Government, but we are acutely aware that the needs of families are equally important and we do our best to help them to maintain regular contact.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the embassy in Abu Dhabi and the consulate in Dubai follow Mr. Atkinson's case very closely. The consul general and his predecessor have raised it with Sheikh Mohammed, Dr. Khalifa, head of the ruler's office, and several times with the Attorney-General. As I have said, we cannot interfere in the Dubai justice system, but we have urged the Dubai authorities to release Mr. Atkinson or bring him to trial. Now that the trial has begun, I promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to press the Dubai authorities to deal with this case quickly.

The hon. Gentleman said that the United Kingdom has close relations with the United Arab Emirates. He is right: we have good bilateral relationships on a range of issues—our economic affairs, the broader political issues in the region, on which we have much in common, and, in particular, defence. That close relationship means that we are in a very strong position to continue to raise individual cases. I assure him that we continue to raise Mr. Atkinson's case. I hope that he is reassured that the Foreign Office has been active on Mr. Atkinson's behalf.