Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 18th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady cited something from the United States that happened fairly recently, but I do not accept her position. I understand her concerns. She did not cite the recent Court of Appeal case, but we could discuss that in relation to some of the businesses that I think are in her mind. The fact of the matter is, as the 2017 judgment made clear, that the people exercising these judgments are full of anxiety and anguish—those words are used in that judgment. On my part, as well as that of my predecessors and my officials and advisers, I have to say how much I resent the implication that those decisions are made lightly. We are human beings, and sometimes we will get decisions wrong, but the consolidated criteria on which we and our allies depend are rigorous and robust, and even the appellate court was good enough to acknowledge that.

I remain convinced that the standards we apply in this country are among the best in the world and are a beacon for others to follow. That does not detract in any way from the fact that, in a complex situation where our intelligence is—from time to time, if not most of the time—inevitably partial, we can get things wrong. That is inevitable, but we have to weigh things up.

Returning to the points I made earlier, it is my view that our engagement with Saudi Arabia is, in general, positive. It is more likely to engage Saudi Arabia and procure what we would see as good behaviour on its part than the alternative, which is disengagement. I will come on to some further points on defence and security, but ultimately as politicians we have to decide which we choose. I am pleased that the United Kingdom has historically been and remains in the company of those who choose engagement and influence rather than distance.

I am concerned, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Reigate clearly are, that if we changed tack and policy direction, we would isolate the regime in Riyadh. The consequences are very difficult to predict. It is an extraordinarily dangerous region. A change in direction could pose a real and present threat to this country and the people the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and I represent. I would tread warily before dramatically changing Government policy in the way that I think she would tempt us to do, along with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and, I suspect, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I disagree with that point. There is a choice to be made; it is a fairly clearcut difference of approach. I respect those who take a different view, but there it is.

[Mr Carmichael]

The debate is now essentially not about whether we intervene, but about how we intervene and with what force. The asks I made of the Minister in relation to those who were detained in November 2017 were four very basic, modest asks: the right for someone to be told what they are charged with; their right to be released if they are not charged; their right to have their assets given back if there is no legal basis for taking them; and, most fundamentally, the request for proof of life. Surely those requests are at one end of the spectrum, and the Government should have no difficulty in making them forcibly and publicly.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because he brings me on to my next remarks. I will try hard not to be diverted by some of the broader issues in addressing what I think are the guts of his thesis, which relate to those who have been detained, imprisoned and misused.

Of course, the big headline figure in all this is Jamal Khashoggi, whose brutal murder and dismemberment truly sickened the world. There cannot be any of us who are not revolted by that story. It is a stain on the reputation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and I look forward to details of what happened being made public and explicit very soon. It would be appalling if Saudi Arabia decided to obfuscate or obscure that terrible episode. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia must make it very clear what remedial action will be taken in respect of those who are responsible and to prevent such events from happening in future.

The lack of transparency around the anti-corruption campaign, including the Ritz-Carlton detentions, mainly of Ministers, princes and businessmen, gives the international community cause for concern. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know that, in February last year, those remaining at the Ritz were released following a number of court settlements, or transferred to prison pending prosecution. Let us be clear: those remaining in prison must be brought to trial or released. Their assets must be unfrozen if it is not the intention of the Saudi authorities to bring charges against those individuals.

The right hon. Gentleman can be sure that the Foreign Secretary and the ambassador in Riyadh lose no opportunity to raise the plight of those individuals, and to insist that their cases must be brought to a conclusion. They must be either charged with the corruption with which they have been associated, or released and their assets unfrozen. I will ensure that we continue to apply what pressure we can on KSA in order to achieve that end. However, it is not just about the 50 who are imprisoned, about whom we remain concerned; it is also about the mechanism within the Saudi state that allows such circumstances to arise, and the judicial process that Saudi uses to apprehend and manage that case load.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East mentioned the specialised criminal court, which is used to try cases that our peers among the international community would not regard as terrorist cases at all. There have been allusions in the debate to the kinds of things that Saudi Arabia might imagine constitute terrorism. I have to say that the same practice is found in a number of states within the Gulf region—it is not unique to Saudi Arabia. It is a source of frustration for many of us who deal with consular issues to try to work out why individuals have been apprehended on particular charges that look, on the face of it, outrageous and ridiculous, but that is because we are judging by our own standards and mores.

The way that many countries in the region regard such things as terrorism and offences against the state can be very different from our own. That is in no way to justify it, but it is to begin to try to understand it. I share the concerns expressed by the hon. about the SCC, and those concerns are shared with our interlocuters on a regular basis. More generally, we believe that civil and political rights strengthen a nation. I think we all believe that—otherwise we would not be here. Those rights make the state more resilient and more stable, and it is in all our interests to see a secure, stable and moderate Saudi Arabia playing a constructive role in a highly volatile region.

Free expression allows innovation to thrive and ideas to develop—an essential foundation for economic development and social cohesion. I was particularly interested in the remarks made by my hon. Friends on the nature of that cohesion, and the implicit threat to it if Saudi Arabia’s friends in the west behave in a way that isolates it and distances it from our norms and values. In our conversations with Saudi leaders and officials, we consistently underline the importance of respecting freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. In a country wedded to social media, that includes online activity. We make the case that such issues are the guarantors of long-term stability in the region.

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to the Saudi Government about a number of the cases mentioned today. They are listed in my briefing notes, and do not make for easy reading. Some of it has been articulated in the course of the debate, but not all of it. We have raised our concerns at the most senior levels about the increasing number of people detained for crimes relating to freedom of expression, as well as allegations of torture in detention and the lack of transparency in the aforementioned judicial process.

During the UN universal periodic review of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record in November, and the UN human rights council in March, we made clear our concerns about the constrained political environment. Right hon. and hon. Members are right to say that we believe that it is getting worse rather than better. The Government utterly condemned Jamal Khashoggi’s killing in the strongest possible terms. At the UN human rights council in June, we set out our expectation for a transparent judicial process and urged Saudi Arabia to take steps to ensure that such crimes will not happen again.

I will address the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland as fully as I can. If he feels that I have not addressed them fully, I am more than happy to exchange correspondence with him. I agree with him about the appalling spectacle of 37 mainly Shi’a men executed in April. That was an appalling, ghastly spectacle, and I have no doubt that the leadership in Saudi Arabia want to ensure that the good reputation of their country is not besmirched and stained again in the way that it undoubtedly was.

One hon. Member talked about shaming Saudi Arabia. Shaming is dangerous in respect of many of the countries in the Gulf region. Shaming is perhaps a bit of a challenge, but certainly the reputation of our interlocutors is important to them. In our discourse with them, it is important to point out in clear terms, as their embassies in London most certainly will, that such things put the relationship between the UK, and the west in general, and the country in question back many years. It is vital that those countries give full thought and consideration to what such things do in terms of their reputation with those that they wish to influence and, in many cases, to emulate.

Diplomats from our embassy in Riyadh attempt to observe all trials of international concern, with varying effectiveness. We have lobbied at the highest levels for the diplomatic observation of human rights trials to be reinstated as a matter of routine. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly said that the UK condemns the death penalty in all countries and in all circumstances. I think the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West said something slightly different—that the Government say that they condemn capital punishment.

The Government do not just say that they condemn capital punishment; they really mean it. Implicit in the word “say” is, perhaps, an element of doubt. I would like to use this opportunity to expunge that doubt completely and irrevocably. Let me say it again: the United Kingdom condemns capital punishment in all countries and in all circumstances. On that, I think the great majority—an almost overwhelming majority —of right hon. and hon. Members in this House would agree.

Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Alistair Carmichael

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

These are unusual times for Northern Ireland and this is an unusual Bill. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what we have today is something of an essay crisis; that is to say, something presented as being urgent and in need of consideration by the House in one day that could in fact easily have been considered more electively.

It has been said that we should decouple the two elements of the Bill. In truth, most of the Bill relates to the renewable heat incentive. The regional rate issue is largely unobjectionable and would pass with the greatest of ease through the House on a bipartisan basis, but we have to accept that politically the renewable heat incentive is an extremely toxic issue. After all, it has brought us to the sorry pass that we are currently in, with the collapse of the Executive and the Assembly. It is absolutely central to the political chaos that currently afflicts Northern Ireland and that is adversely impacting on the lived experience of people in Northern Ireland, so it demands that we look at the legislation closely and in a considered and measured fashion, of the sort that usually involves a proper Committee stage. That is not being offered on this occasion. I share the surprise expressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) that these two completely different issues have been conjoined in this rather unusual Bill. I have sympathy with his suggestion that the two might be separated so that we can pass that which is unobjectionable and straightforward and consider on a more elective basis those bits—those clauses—that are more complicated.

A 12% return is pretty good by any standards. A casual observer of our proceedings would wonder, I suspect, what the fuss is all about—I would love to have a 12% return on my investments—but the fact of the matter is that those small businesses that invested in this technology did so on the copper-bottomed understanding that they would get a different rate of return. The institutions that lent on that basis would have been similarly advised, and the investment would have been procured on that basis. We now have to unpick something of a disaster on the part of the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, and I understand the Secretary of State’s dilemma. This is not easy; something has to be done. However, when Bills are before us in this place, we must consider those people who will be inadvertently disadvantaged. Like most hon. and right hon. Members in this House, I have been lobbied by such people who point out that they invested in good faith and that their small businesses might be brought to the edge because of the change in circumstances over which they have no control.

[Mr Carmichael]

Does that not go to the heart of the matter? The existence of a voluntary buy-out scheme seems an implicit recognition to me that exactly the situation that the hon. Gentleman identifies is one that is likely to occur. That surely means that the legitimate expectations of the recipients of the subsidies are so adversely affected that any legal challenge would be successful.

[Dr Murrison]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns in that respect. As a lawyer, he will know better than me that there is every prospect of a judicial review in this matter. It would be very surprising, given the propensity of individuals and organisations in Northern Ireland to seek judicial review on a range of things, if that were not the case in this instance. Indeed, that includes their representative organisations. Clearly, the Government need to do everything in their power to ensure that they are protected against such an eventuality, including, I suggest, ensuring proper scrutiny of this Bill, as inadequate scrutiny will surely be cited as a reason for such a review to result in a judgment that is in favour of those bringing the case forward. However, fear of judicial review is one thing, but what we need to do in this place is to ensure that individuals are not disadvantaged. That means scrutinising this Bill properly and trying to ensure that, if possible, those hard cases are avoided.

I understand the rules on state aid and I understand that the buy-out is a mechanism of trying to be generous to those who may be disadvantaged, but within the rules that have been set. I also have concerns because the Department that has advised on this matter—the Department for the Economy—is, of course, implicated in the mess in the first place. I would be worried if the Secretary of State were being overly reliant on the advice that she is receiving from that Department and, in all candour, I suggest that she needs to be extremely careful about that.

Scrutiny—challenging advice—is what we do in this place. It worries me that this controversial Bill on this most toxic of issues is not undergoing such scrutiny. It would seem to me to be entirely sensible for Ministers to ensure that this measure has all possible scrutiny to hedge against the possibility that what it is doing, on advice from the Department for the Economy, is in fact erring in some important respect, as indeed the advice to Ministers has been from that Department in the past.

I also worry—this has been touched on already—about what confidence institutions will have in these sorts of Government schemes in the future, given that they will have assumed that anything backed by or instituted by Government is copper-bottomed, safe and triple A rated. They now find that that is not the case, and that any loan they may have made on the basis of an expectation of, admittedly, fantastically high returns—nevertheless, backed by Government—will in fact result in a return much less than that. Indeed, in the event that some of these businesses go to the wall, these investments may have to be written off.

We have to reflect on the fact that many of these businesses are marginal concerns. Many of the 1,800 businesses are farms, and we know that farming in Northern Ireland is quite different from farming in the rest of the United Kingdom. They tend to be small, marginal farms. The people from those farms who have invested in this scheme may find themselves embarrassed financially by this particular decision. It is quite possible that we might be able to design some sort of scheme that is based around hardship for special cases. There is no recommendation to that effect in this Bill other than the buy-out scheme. I commend the Secretary of State for that, as it is absolutely right to bring such a scheme forward within the constraints of state aid, but there is very little beyond that, and there will be cases of hardship. In the context of Northern Ireland—a small place with lots of small businesses and small farms—would not it be tragic if we found some of those businesses going to the wall as a result of this change in policy?

Of course, this legislation has to go through because if it does not, on 1 April people will be faced with getting nothing, but I gently suggest to Ministers that this is an imperfect Bill that needs further scrutiny and input. I hope very much that my new clause 1 will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that we may debate this matter further in Committee. It would be extremely good if we could do so, because the new clause makes some sensible recommendations about how we can ensure that this difficult part of a Bill that is otherwise unobjectionable is given the scrutiny that it deserves so that people can therefore have greater confidence in it.

In general, the Secretary of State is quite right to bring this legislation forward. It is a pity that we have not had the scrutiny of the whole Bill that it really deserves. Given the issues that currently apply at Stormont, we need to be particularly careful in this place that we give matters that relate to Northern Ireland all the scrutiny we can possibly can. This represents something of an essay crisis that was absolutely avoidable had we brought the measures forward in a more timely manner and decoupled these two very different elements of a particularly unusual Bill.