Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this. As I said earlier, I cannot overstate how important it is that we are increasingly digitising the service. When people go to Norcross and see the mountains of paperwork that Veterans UK is having to cope with, they begin to understand how vital it is that we properly digitise the service and bring it into the 21st century, which is our intention.

The hon. Lady might like to know, because it is a barometer or litmus test of how the service is doing, that the proportion of armed forces compensation scheme cases going to tribunal has been falling since 2014-15, which balances some of the remarks we have heard about Veterans UK not being up to scratch. We need to review it, which is what we are doing, but I am convinced that the service will be better than it is at the moment, if that is of any reassurance.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

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.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Alistair Carmichael

Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

I certainly rise to support this measure, which has improved enormously during its passage. I cannot think of a measure in my 15 years here that has been more thoroughly scrutinised than this one. Our constituents are going to be very pleased with what we have been doing over the past weeks and months. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I respect very much, that one thing our constituents dislike most about this place is the perpetual protest in opposition, which we hear too often, particularly from his party. It does him no good. This Bill is—

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Murrison]

Certainly not. This Bill has been characterised by consensus, and I have been heartened by the constructive attitude that the Labour Front Benchers have taken to this measure, moving from a position of abstention on Second Reading to one of support now. It does them a great deal of credit and has made this Bill very much better. The double lock was a turning point in this measure as far as I am concerned, but may I also say that the privacy clause, new clause 5, is essential for many of us? The Home Secretary pointed that out. We have not had an opportunity to debate it very much today, but new clause 14, on health matters, has also been particularly important for a number of us who had concerns.

Clause 222 has not been debated at great length, but again it is vital because it allows us in five years’ time to come back to this measure to see what more needs to be done and what might be removed. That is particularly relevant in the context of ICRs. We have heard that one outstanding issue relates to the definition and use of ICRs, and I know that the other place will debate that at some length. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security has referred to it and he is right to do so. I firmly believe that we will want to come back to it in any event in five years’ time, as technology will have changed so much in that period.

In summary, I very much welcome this measure—it is absolutely right. I am convinced that that overwhelming majority of our constituents will be pleased with the assiduity we have applied to this measure and, in particular, with the consensual nature of our debate. It is a great measure. It will give our constituents the protection that they undoubtedly need, while safeguarding their historic liberties.

Wilson Doctrine

Debate between Andrew Murrison and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his initiative in applying for the debate, and I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on granting it. It is a timely and necessary debate, and it has been a good debate so far. If anything about it disappoints me, it is the fact that the House has been rather less full than I hoped. I suspect that if at the heart of the debate were a more specific suggestion that Members’ communications had been intercepted, the Benches would have overflowed. I am afraid that this really is not good enough. If I may borrow a phrase from another part of the political lexicon, we need to mend the roof while the sun is shining. It is at this moment, when we are not under the immediate pressure of allegations of that sort, that we should be considering this matter in the context of the broadest possible principles.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s clarification that she considers the Wilson doctrine to be a live doctrine which continues to operate, but I echo the concern expressed by others this evening about just how meaningful it is in 2015. As I said to the Home Secretary in my intervention, we now have a very different constitutional framework, a range of very different ways in which communication is undertaken, and a range of different matters in which Members of Parliament now routinely intervene, many of which had not even been envisaged in 1966.

I am a great fan of the flexibility of the British constitution when, through the operation of doctrines and conventions, it is capable of responding in a way that has common sense at its heart. Sometimes, however, those doctrines and conventions become overused, and, by virtue of the introduction of other legislative frameworks, of which RIPA is one of the most obvious examples, reach a point at which they no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally intended. That, I suggest, is the point that has now been reached.

A remarkable aspect of the debate is the existence of broad agreement. From the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) onwards, it has been clear that if we undertake this in the way in which we, as parliamentarians, ought to undertake it—openly, and accepting that we all act in good faith—it should be possible to construct a Wilson doctrine for the 21st century, which will, I fear, now have to be enshrined in statute. I hope that a draft regulation of interception Bill, at least, will give us an opportunity to consider how that might be done.

I think it is a matter of broad consensus—I have heard no one suggest otherwise tonight—that the people who stand to benefit from the operation of the doctrine are not Members of this House or, indeed, of the other place, but our constituents. That, I think, is a principle that has not changed since 1966, and one that should be at the heart of any statutory codification. There has also been universal agreement on the principle that Members of Parliament should not be above the law. However, when it comes to people not being above the law, that should of course include the Home Secretary, and anyone else who would be required to sign a warrant in respect of matters such as this. For that reason, I suggest that a degree of judicial oversight of some sort should be incorporated in our new measures.

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say with a great deal of interest, and I agree with much of it. Does he agree with me, however, that it is slightly important for us to take the public along with us? They will see—and the press has been reflecting it recently—that this simply means parliamentarians putting themselves above the law. Can he define precisely what concerns him about MPs’ relationship with their constituents, and, perhaps, contrast it with what applies to those in other professions, such as healthcare workers, lawyers and journalists? Perhaps, as he comes from Scotland, I can press him further, and ask him whether he regards this as an argument for first past the post, given that we would have to examine the relationships of list MSPs compared with constituency MSPs. Is he concerned primarily about the relationship between a constituent and a constituency MSP or MP?

[Mr Carmichael]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s second question first, while I can still remember it. I must tell him that list MSPs have constituents as well, but over a much wider range of areas. As for the question of the description, it is a little like an elephant: it is difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it. That is the sort of work that needs to be done, and I believe that it can best be done on a cross-party basis. While we have the time and the space, we should be constructing a new system which is capable of maintaining and commanding the confidence of people across the House, whichever party happens to be on the Treasury Bench at any given moment.

My intervention on the Home Secretary’s speech was prompted by her interesting use of the term “the spirit of the Wilson doctrine” in relation to parliamentarians who are not here or in the other place, but in the devolved legislatures: the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. I think that there is a fairly simple principle at stake, namely that when we devolve power, we should also devolve the privilege that goes with power. The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) invited me to contrast our position with that of other professionals, such as lawyers, doctors and journalists. I would not contrast it, but I would say that, in many ways, we have the same reasons for such privilege. I say that as a former solicitor. The hon. Gentleman is a medical practitioner, and he understands that there are good and compelling reasons for the extension of privilege to those professions in the way in which it was extended to what is done in the House of Commons.

[Dr Murrison]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with both the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) that in the upcoming legislation it would be better for the professions that deal with people and their issues to be dealt with en bloc, so that the public do not see politicians as being in a particular group on their own, and are therefore more likely to understand the need for certain exchanges to be privileged?

[Mr Carmichael]

I caution the hon. Gentleman, without necessarily disagreeing with him, that we should not allow the best to be the enemy of the good. Ideally, that is the point that we should reach, but if we wait until the standing of the House of Commons, and that of politics in general, is so high that we will not be subject to public criticism for doing what remains the right thing to do, I am afraid that we shall end up waiting for a very long time.

I mentioned the devolved legislatures because it is apparent from reports in the Daily Record that there has been a change of policy. According to the Daily Record, before March 2015 the guidelines given to the security services stated:

“As a matter of policy, GCHQ applies the principles of the Wilson doctrine to Members of the House of Commons, Members of the House of Lords, UK MEPs, and members of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies”—

however inaccurately they may have been named there. In June, however, it was reported:

“The doctrine does not apply to…the interception of communications of Members of the European Parliament or devolved assemblies.”

If that is the correct statement of the advice, and I have not seen it challenged anywhere, clearly there has been a change. We are entitled to ask why that change was made and in principle why Members of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies should be treated any differently from Members of this House. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) made the point that they have a democratic mandate and duties of democratic accountability in the same way we do. On that basis, there should be no reason for them being treated differently.

As I said at the start, the time for the ability to regulate these matters through adoption or convention is well and truly behind us. There is a clear need for a measure of judicial oversight. In that way, we can ensure confidence, and it is in the interests of the Treasury Bench that the decisions taken command confidence in this House, in other places and across the country with the public as a whole.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said that it would be suggested that if we have nothing to hide, we should have nothing to fear. The question is not about what we have to hide or fear, it is about our constituents.