Saudi Arabia

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend is right. I pay tribute to his understanding and knowledge of the area. We are working with Saudi Arabia across a wide range of issues, one of which is religious tolerance.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

We have seen a very weak response from the UK Government tonight. We find ourselves allies with one of the world’s biggest human rights abusers. It comes as no surprise to me when we heard at the weekend the Foreign Office use the word “disappointment,” stating that it did not expect the executions to go ahead. I am glad that I have heard tonight that the Minister has been in touch with the Saudi Kingdom and asked for the boys to be spared. The Minister is well aware that I have been campaigning for Ali for months and also for Dawoud and Abdullah, so I call on the Minister to make sure that the Saudi King commutes the death penalties and does not carry them out. Does the Minister seriously think that evidence of successful dialogue with Saudi is that only 47 executions were carried out, instead of 53?

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not entirely understand the final point that the hon. Lady makes. I pay tribute to her and the work that she is doing in making sure that she raises these issues on the Floor of the House. I take all her contributions extremely seriously. She is aware that I am in constant dialogue over these cases, not just Raif Badawi, but Ali Mohammed al-Nimr and others. We have been working closely together on that and I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to do so.

International Human Rights Day

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Human Rights Day.

As we celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta this year, it seems particularly appropriate to debate international human rights to highlight the fact that in many parts of the world the values of Magna Carta, the rule of law and basic rights are routinely, systematically and severely violated; and to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether human rights remain at the very heart of our foreign policy, and, if so, how we protect and promote them in practice. That is the thrust of this debate.

I am aware of the recent reconfiguration of human rights priorities within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to address human rights within the broad contexts of democratic values, the rules-based international system, and human rights for a stable world. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what that will mean in practice and how human rights will be more effectively delivered under the new framework.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Having written to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office a fortnight ago regarding proposed mass executions in Saudi Arabia, I am dismayed that the Government evidently do not share my alarm, as I am yet to receive replies. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the UK Government wish to be taken seriously about human rights, they need to show more leadership globally?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I do, and I have already put that on the record in debates in Westminster Hall.

I am particularly pleased to have secured this debate alongside the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is sitting across the way; she is a dear friend who is well respected in this House. There have been many debates in this House on human rights themes in relation to specific countries, but we have not, to my knowledge, in the time of this Government or the previous one, had a wide-ranging debate with an opportunity to review the human rights situation around the world and the different ways in which Britain—this great nation—has responded to the challenges so far. The House of Lords has had several such debates, and I welcome this opportunity to do likewise.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office publishes an annual report on human rights, as well as quarterly updates. May I suggest that we consider having an annual debate in Government time in the main Chamber of this House to coincide with the release of the annual report, giving the House as a whole an opportunity to respond to it?

It is vital that we discuss human rights today, on international human rights day, when we commemorate the adoption 67 years ago of the universal declaration of human rights by the UN General Assembly. The declaration was written to provide a common standard for all peoples and nations of which individuals and societies should strive to secure effective recognition and observance. It has helped to shape policy around the world and paved the way for nine legally binding human rights treaties, including the international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights, which were both adopted in 1966 and which more than 160 states have ratified.

Despite these treaties, the human rights and basic freedoms we enjoy in this country are under sustained and severe attack in many other parts of the world. Some 67 years on from the declaration’s adoption, the preamble is worth recording in Hansard, because it is very relevant today:

“disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people”.

That is what we should focus our attention on.

The first three articles of the declaration make it clear that human rights are not confined by geography, territoriality, culture or religion. As its name suggests, they are universal—for everyone—and as the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has underlined, it is not called the partial declaration of human rights or the sometimes declaration of human rights. Article 1 unequivocally states:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Article 2 states:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction…or under any other limitation of sovereignty.”

Article 3 insists:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

These and the following 27 articles should provide the framework for this debate and our foreign policy.

Chagos Islands

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Monaghan]

The islands are an archipelago. There are hundreds of islands and more than enough space for everyone.

In 1982, when the truth leaked out, the islanders exiled to Mauritius were awarded derisory compensation of less than £3,000 per person. Those exiled to Seychelles were awarded no compensation. It was noted then that it had been

“entirely improper, unethical, dictatorial to have the Chagossian put their thumbprint on an English legal, drafted document, where the Chagossian, who doesn’t read, know or speak any English, let alone any legal English, is made to renounce basically all his rights as a human being.”

Was the annexation improper? Certainly. Unethical? I have no doubt. Dictatorial? Absolutely. Those are strong words, but that is exactly how the UK Government have treated and continue to treat the people of Chagos. That is what the Minister is here today to explain.

I understand that Diego Garcia remains the United States’ largest military base outside north America. There are two runways, over 30 warships, more than 4,000 troops and a satellite spy station located on the island. The base has been used as a launch pad for invasions, including those of both Afghanistan and Iraq. It is still in use, and that use is still encouraged by the UK Government.

In 1966, terms for the lease of Diego Garcia were agreed at $1 a year. On expulsion, the indigenous population were allowed to take just one suitcase each. They were forced into the hold of the SS Nordvaer and transported to Seychelles, where they were held in prison cells before being transited elsewhere, many to Mauritius. Wherever they were sent, they were left without financial support.

A Foreign Office memo on the subject at the time, from Sir Paul Gore-Booth to diplomat Denis Greenhill, stated:

“We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise was to get some rocks which will remain ours; there will be no indigenous population except seagulls…The United States Government will require the removal of the entire population of the atoll.”

Denis Greenhill replied in August 1966:

“Unfortunately, along with the birds go some few Tarzans or Men Fridays whose origins are obscure and who are hopefully being wished on to Mauritius etc. When this has been done I agree we must be very tough and a submission is being done accordingly.”

It is impossible for the UK Government to hide behind that correspondence. The casual disregard for human life it evidences is chillingly calculated, unambiguous and staggering. Nevertheless that “tough” action provoked legal action that has ultimately led to all of us being here for this debate today.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

It was estimated in 2007 that the litigation costs to the UK taxpayer for Government action against the Chagossians had amounted to over £4 million; that has no doubt increased after more recent legal proceedings. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of UK Governments to spend money in that way when many Chagossians have been denied fair compensation from the UK?

[Dr Monaghan]

My hon. Friend has raised a valid point that I will come to shortly.

In 1975, a former resident of the Chagos archipelago, Mr Michel Vencatassen, initiated a claim for compensation in the courts of England against the UK Government. The claim was settled in 1982 in an agreement under which the United Kingdom would pay £4 million into a fund for the former residents of the archipelago. Together with a previous payment of £650,000 made to the Government of Mauritius in 1966, that £4 million was later held as

“full and final settlement of all claims”

arising from the removal or resettlement of the population of the Chagos archipelago—despite the fact that many Chagossians have received no compensation at all.

Other verdicts in the English courts went in favour of the Chagossians, in 2000, 2006 and 2007. But in 2008 the House of Lords overturned them all and ruled in favour of the UK Government. That bizarre ruling argued that the Chagossians were deprived of their right of abode lawfully. The ruling resulted in the formation of the all-party group on the Chagos islands, which has since met over 50 times and has attracted members of every single political party represented at Westminster. Full cross-party representation on such a group is very rare indeed.

Undaunted by the 2008 ruling, a group of Chagossians continued to pursue their claims before the European Court of Human Rights. In December 2012, the European Court judgment Chagos Islanders v the United Kingdom held that the claim was inadmissible, on the grounds that in settling their claims previously in 1982 and accepting and receiving compensation, the applicants had effectively renounced further use of legal remedies. Following the ruling, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), then Attorney General and speaking for the UK Government, said:

“we regret very much the circumstances in which they were removed from the islands and recognise that what was done then should not have happened.”

Fine words on a flawed judgement—flawed because, I note again, not all Chagossians were compensated.

Five weeks before the general election in 2010, parallel to the actions on deprivation of right of abode, the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband—now, it is worth noting, president and chief executive officer of the International Rescue Committee, where he oversees humanitarian relief—ignored the advice of diplomats and rushed through the establishment of a marine protected area around the UK-controlled Chagos islands. That declaration was another significant, desperate and cynical attempt to anticipate legal claims on right of abode and to continue subverting the human rights of the Chagos people.

At The Hague on 18 March 2015, in its judgment Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom), the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled in favour of Mauritius against the UK Government concerning the declaration made on 1 April 2010 by David Miliband on behalf of the UK Government. The tribunal found that consultations on the marine protected area were characterised by a lack of information and an absence of sufficiently reasoned exchanges between the parties involved. It noted in particular that the UK Government engaged far less with Mauritius about establishing the marine protected area than it did with the United States. We need not speculate why.

More recently, on 4 August 2015, the UK Government announced a three-month consultation exercise on purported resettlement of Mauritians of Chagossian origin in the Chagos archipelago. That consultation period ended yesterday, when Mr Pierre Prosper, chair of the Seychelles Chagossians Committee, told me that although all Chagossians have responded to the consultation stating that they want to return, all have refused the terms of the UK Government’s offer,

“which reduces us to cheap labour for the military base, with no rights at all”.

Considering that consultation on resettlement, the Minister should know that the proposed conditions of resettlement amount yet again to a gross violation of the Chagossians’ most basic human rights.

The Prime Minister of Mauritius has also rejected the premise of the UK Government’s consultation and has demanded that Chagossians who wish to resettle on the archipelago should be able to live in dignity and enjoy their basic human rights. I support that view. The Prime Minister of Mauritius stated earlier this month at the United Nations General Assembly:

“The Chagos archipelago was illegally excised by the United Kingdom from the territory of Mauritius prior to its accession to independence, in breach of international law and resolutions of this Assembly.”

In the wake of that illegal excision, the Mauritians residing in the Chagos archipelago at the time were forcibly evicted by the British authorities, with total disregard for those people’s human rights. Most of them were moved to the main island of Mauritius. The Government of Mauritius are fully sensitive to their plight and their legitimate aspiration as Mauritian citizens to resettle on the archipelago. Mauritius welcomes the award of the arbitral tribunal delivered on 18 March 2015 against the United Kingdom under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea:

“We welcome the tribunal’s decision that the ‘marine protected area’ purportedly declared by the United Kingdom around the Chagos archipelago was established in violation of international law.”

That is an excellent summary of the current situation.

The current resettlement proposals offer no right of abode and stipulate that Chagossians must return to their islands as “contract workers”, with no right to buy land or property. Moreover, the resettlement is intended to be for a trial period, beginning with a two-year pilot, after which resettlement may be cancelled. During the pilot period, Chagossians will not be allowed visitors on their islands, despite hundreds of wealthy tourists visiting the islands each year, mooring their yachts, living in Chagossians’ abandoned homes and spending their time on the islands largely unmonitored. Similarly, unlike with Tristan da Cunha and Pitcairn, the UK Government’s resettlement proposals advise that no education services will be provided, thereby effectively excluding families with children from returning to their islands.

In short, the consultation and the terms of resettlement are transparent, unsatisfactory and quite obviously designed to scare the indigenous people and ensure that resettlement on the Chagos islands fails. The refusal of the consultation document to guarantee support for Chagossians if resettlement is cancelled after two years means that Chagossians face an unenviable dilemma, and an unattractive and very insecure future. Furthermore, many Chagossian groups in Europe—for example, in Switzerland and France—have not been consulted on the resettlement proposals at all. As an exercise in engagement, the consultation is therefore effectively worthless and should be viewed and condemned as such.

To be clear, the UK Government’s consultation fails spectacularly to address the key issues and should be roundly dismissed. It is, of course, welcome that the UK Government are considering how to make Chagossian resettlement a reality, but the terms of resettlement must be fair to Chagossians. The current proposals are not.

The basic premise advanced by the UK Government of there being “uncertainty” over both resettlement costs and demand is simply inaccurate. Indeed, recent freedom of information requests reveal that KPMG, which evaluated resettlement options and developed the costings, has described its own estimates as having been made with “pessimism”. It remains unclear who instructed that pessimism, but I am sure we will find out at some point. To put that pessimism into context, one estimate suggests “capital and training” costs of £267.5 million over six years to resettle 1,500 people. Another scenario is costed at £4.04 million per person to meet the capital costs of “resettlement and security” over the first 10 years.

Arms Sales (Human Rights)

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.

Those of us speaking today will certainly not be short of words. The defence and security equipment exhibition taking place this week in this city has brought the issue to the fore. The UK Government have invited many countries to attend the four-day event. To make the most of my time, I will focus on Saudi Arabia.

In 2014, the Economist Intelligence Unit, not usually known as a radical source, ranked Saudi Arabia at 161 out of 167 in its democracy index. Only six of the world’s Governments are deemed more repressive, including Syria, North Korea and the Central African Republic.

It is easy for me to stand here and quote statistics today, but I would rather give an example that seems to be making the news: the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was arrested in February 2012 when he was only 17. He was accused by Saudi authorities of participating in an illegal protest and of firearms offences. Despite there being no evidence to justify the charges, he was convicted of the alleged offences by the specialised criminal court. His final appeal, which was held in secret and without his knowledge, was dismissed. The young man’s life is now set to be cut dramatically short and he has been sentenced to death on charges that include insulting the king and delivering religious sermons that disrupt national unity. It is an absolute outrage and I intend to write to the Minister to ask for urgent action to be taken.

As if all that was not alarming enough, Ali’s sentence is due to be barbarically carried out by crucifixion. I feel for this young man and his family. Reading Ali’s story this morning filled me with grief for his life about to be savagely and abruptly ended. How in 2015 can a supposedly civilised country impose such an inhumane and merciless penalty on any of its citizens, let alone one so young?

Ali is but one of countless examples of Saudis falling foul of the ruthlessly relentless regime. While human life holds little or no value to the Saudi establishment, our own Government seemingly place a high value on the arms business. Saudi is one of the largest arms export markets, worth billions of pounds to our Exchequer: blood money that the UK Government are happy to take. We supply weapons and ammunition. We deliver military aircraft and we help to train Saudi personnel. We even co-operate with the military action. Saudi is leading the coalition that is bombing Yemen, killing and maiming many civilians as well as destroying their homes. This is being done, with the apparent blessing of the UK, using arms purchased from us.

The Government appear to be bending over backwards to sustain the relationship. In 2014, when David Cameron could not get the Saudis to agree the financing for a multi-billion-pound Eurofighter Typhoon deal, Prince Charles came to the rescue. The prince visited Saudi Arabia and did a sword dance in traditional dress at a festival supported by BAe. His visit came two days before BAe was due to issue its financial results, amid rumours that its share price was set to fall unless agreement could be reached on the pricing of the Typhoon deal. The next day, Saudi Arabia and BAe Systems announced that a deal had been finalised. So while the royal family grovel to maintain the status quo of our arms trade with the Saudis, the human rights abuses continue apace. On average, one person is executed every two days in Saudi Arabia.

It seems that for the UK Government the interests of BAe Systems trumped any frank speaking to the Saudi authorities about human rights. There can be no doubt that such determined pursuit puts commercial relationships before human rights, and sends a strong signal of UK support for the regime. The blind eye that we officially turn to Saudi Arabia’s dreadful denial of human rights only serves to support its savage and sadistic regime. Can the Minister please answer the points I have made?

Human Rights (Saudi Arabia)

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stewart McDonald]

For the most part, yes.

Last week, at Foreign Office questions, I asked the Minister about two specific points. I hate to say this, but I received an answer to neither, so I want to press the questions now. First, I asked whether the Minister would instruct the United Kingdom ambassador in Riyadh to request a visit to the prison in which Mr Badawi is being held so that we might get a report on his mental and physical state and on the conditions in which he is being held. Will the Minister undertake to give such an assurance?

Secondly, will the Minister state without equivocation—there is plenty of precedent for this, although funnily enough not in Saudi Arabia—that Mr Badawi should be set free? He is a prisoner of conscience and he should not be in prison. Surely the Government agree with that. If so, will the Minister please state that in his response?

Last week in the main Chamber, the Minister sought to give me some kind of reassurance: he said that the Saudi supreme court was reviewing the case. The Minister is a reasonable man, so I am sure he does not seriously expect me or the House to find any reassurance in the fact that the same justice system that put Mr Badawi where he is today is now marking its own homework to determine whether he should still be in prison. The Saudi justice system is not a normal justice system and the Saudi Government are not a normal Government—and we should stop treating them as such. The Minister might be willing to turn a blind eye, but he cannot expect us to ignore the crimes and brutal human rights abuses of which the Saudi regime is guilty.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend is aware, Saudi Arabia sits on the United Nations Human Rights Council and hosted an international human rights conference that resolved to combat intolerance and violence based on religious belief, even though the country has one of the worst records of abuse in the world today. The number of executions has been rising and stands at a startling rate: 88 people were executed last year in Saudi Arabia. Surely that cannot continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

It is a pleasure to work under your experienced chairmanship, Mr Chope. I begin, as others have done, by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart McDonald) on securing the debate. I will not try to say which names are which, but I was grateful for the clarification at the beginning.

I will say as a general remark that this debate has been informative and constructive. From a personal perspective, it is good to see new Members of Parliament from the Scottish National party come here with such a depth of knowledge and interest, and such a commitment to these issues. It is healthy and important to have them at such debates, along with those of the older generation who are regulars at them; I am only sorry that there are not more Members from my party to match them. However, I am pleased that we are here to place on record our relationship with Saudi Arabia and the important human rights aspect of that relationship.

It is worth placing in context where we stand. The UK and Saudi Arabia have a long history of friendship, understanding and co-operation. That relationship is rooted in defence, security, trade and investment, as hon. Members have mentioned. There are many bilateral challenges and opportunities, as has also been said, including Iraq and Syria, ISIL and Daesh and the changes taking place with the new Iranian nuclear deal. As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) also mentioned, Yemen is also an issue.

It is important to remind ourselves that the people of Britain have strong bilateral links with Saudi Arabia. Millions of Muslims travel to Saudi Arabia every year to perform the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages and to visit the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. I understand that 18,000 Britons completed the Hajj in 2014. The bilateral relationship is strong, which allows us to have frank conversations, often behind the scenes.

My speech has now been ruined by my scribbles in trying to answer all the questions that have been asked in this interesting debate. As I have done in the past, I will do my best to respond now, but if I do not, I will ensure that we scroll through Hansard and write to hon. Members individually to give them more details about the important questions that they have asked.

Saudi Arabia and Britain are essential partners and good friends. As a long-time friend of Saudi Arabia, we are able to have honest and meaningful conversations with the Saudi Arabian Government about all issues, including human rights. To be frank, sometimes those conversations are difficult. We remain deeply concerned about Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty, restricted access to justice, the women’s rights situation and continued restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and religious freedom.

[Margaret Ferrier]

One issue that has not been mentioned is human trafficking, rates of which are extremely high in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom is currently designated by the USA as a country of particular concern. The Saudi Arabian Government do not comply with the minimum standards for eliminating trafficking and are not making significant efforts to do so; they have moved from tier 2 to tier 3 due to their lack of progress on anti-trafficking efforts, particularly their failure to protect victims and prosecute those guilty of involuntary servitude. Will the Minister look at that as well?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will certainly come to those matters if time permits.

The Government’s view is a matter of public record, and we continue to make our views known in public and in private through multilateral and bilateral channels. We use the UN universal periodic review process and the FCO’s annual human rights and democracy report, which has been mentioned several times, including by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), as well as our own diplomatic engagement with the Saudi Arabian authorities, to raise such concerns at all levels.

We can and do give tough messages, but we must recognise the crucial point that Saudi culture is deeply rooted in widely held conservative social values. We usually judge that our human rights concerns are best raised in private, and we will continue to work with the Saudi Arabian authorities and those in Saudi society advocating human rights reform, but we will continue to stand up for the full range of human rights. That is at the core of the strategy that we are discussing. Many—including, I think, the hon. Member for Glasgow South; I apologise if I misunderstood his tone—have advocated that we should somehow back away and not trade with that country because we should stand up for certain human rights issues. Forgive me if that is incorrect; if so, I will allow him to correct it. If we were to do so, would we give up an opportunity to have influence at the front line in favour of shouting from afar?