Human Rights: Saudi Arabia

Debate between Martin Horwood and Daniel Kawczynski

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate and particularly on her work highlighting the case of the Saudi princesses. She is right to do that. She is also right to say that that is just the tip of the iceberg; it is a high-profile case, but other hon. Members have many distressing reports about the denial of human rights in Saudi Arabia.

The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) always puts the strong case that we have an important strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia, that it is important to our energy interests and that, in some respects, it has a positive influence in the region, including supporting peace processes. However, none of this should blind us to the fact that it is in many ways an extremist state itself, for example, in its systematic denial of women’s rights. A large proportion of the population are being denied rights simply on the basis of how they were born. In that regard it might be compared to apartheid South Africa in its denial of rights to black people.

The level of public executions is extraordinary. There are dozens each year, including a few that appear to have involved not just a public beheading but, in the case of some Yemeni convicts, a kind of crucifixion of the dead body after public execution.

There are very limited rights, not only for women, but for political and human rights defenders and for ethnic and religious minorities. There is no penal code, so there is almost encouragement for arbitrary or at least inconsistent dissemination of justice.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the issue of Christians in Saudi Arabia, but there is evidence for discrimination against other religious minorities, including Ismaili and Shi’a Muslims and Hindus, and against atheists as well. Although the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said that the kingdom was in a process of reform, only in April a law was passed that categorised those who called for atheist thought in any form—thoughtcrime, as George Orwell might have called it—or called into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion in any way, even entirely peacefully or even in an academic way, as facing 20 years’ imprisonment and placed them in the same category as violent extremist groups, such as al-Qaeda. That is not a reform process as I understand it.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

One delegate on our recent trip was the former leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who said that since his last visit to the kingdom in 1980 the country had completely changed beyond his recollection. He was pleased with some of the changes regarding human rights that were taking place. I urge the hon. Gentleman to talk to his former leader about this. Does he not agree that there have been changes and that the Saudi Government are moving towards greater human rights?

[Martin Horwood]

I can accept that there are changes. I will certainly talk to my right hon. and learned Friend, who is a fine advocate for and defender of human rights. I should imagine that he would be as disappointed as I am about the changes in the other direction, such as the new laws promulgated in April.

I am afraid that the very conservative form of Wahhabi Islam that is prevalent in Saudi Arabia leads the country down some of these paths. The very strict interpretation of the Hadith—saying that

“there can be no two religions in the Arabian Peninsula”—

leads it into an intolerant attitude towards other religions and beliefs that is not typical of Islam in general and is certainly not historically true of Islam. The fundamentalist trend in Saudi Arabia is disappointing and makes it an unlikely ally in some ways in the battle against radicalisation and extremism.

The madrassahs in Saudi Arabia, for example, might have been responsible for nurturing some of the theological ideas that lie behind the violent Salafist movements. I am not suggesting that the Saudi Arabian Government in any way supports those movements, but it is clear that that religious environment has been one of the breeding grounds for that very extreme and conservative form of Islam. Various private individuals and some Governments in the Gulf are undoubtedly not as discriminatory as this Government in their support for, for instance, the rebel groups in Syria. We are clear that we support the democratic opposition in Syria and those who advocate a moderate and democratic state. Some of our apparent allies in the Gulf are not quite as discriminating. Even in terms of its influence in the region, it is not as clear as it was once that Saudi Arabia is an entirely positive influence.

We have to be careful. We have allies and strategic interests all over the world, and although it is right to be as diplomatic as we can be with those who have some questionable human rights records, we have to be clear that the Government stand up for human rights and have an ethical foreign policy. We also have to think carefully about what it means to be an ally. At some level, there has to be some basis in shared values and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, it is sometimes difficult to see what those values are.

Before I sit down, there are a couple of cases I will mention, which relate to particular human rights defenders. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham implored us not to listen only to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and foreign organisations. We should listen to the Adala centre for human rights. It is a Saudi organisation and has reported beatings, arbitrary arrests and the torture of peaceful protesters. It accused the general intelligence agency of violating international, domestic and moral laws and one of its founders, Fadhel Maki al-Manasif, was convicted of breaking allegiance with the King and contact with foreign news agencies, which is not a crime in many countries. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should take up his case with urgency, along with the cases of Mohammed al-Qahtani and Abdullah al-Hamid, who were also imprisoned simply for advocating the kind of human rights that we in this country take for granted.

The FCO has been good, despite the political and economic inconvenience of reporting on human rights, at continuing to include Saudi Arabia among its countries of concern in its annual human rights report. I am proud to support a Government who raise those issues, but it seems to me that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has many, many questions to answer. We should be asking those questions.

Badger Cull

Debate between Martin Horwood and Daniel Kawczynski

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

In Shropshire in 1997, 47 cows were slaughtered as a result of bovine TB. Last year, more than 2,000 were slaughtered. There has been a huge increase in the disease in my constituency and throughout Shropshire.

I have spent a lot of time with many of my Shropshire dairy farmers and sometimes, having gone around their farms with them, I have found myself sitting at their kitchen tables, having coffee and talking about the impact of that slaughter on them and their families. I do not mind saying that sometimes we—grown men—have sat around the table and cried, such is the emotion. The impact—not just on them but on their families and, in particular, young children—of whole herds being taken away for slaughter is devastating.

I hope that hon. Members who oppose this action will take the time—I invited the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in good spirit—to come to Shropshire and areas of the country facing this extraordinary crisis, and to meet our constituents and hear the emotion in their pleas for action. Hon. Members would then begin to understand why so many Government Members feel strongly that action must be taken now.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. I stood beside a dairy farmer in my constituency as their herd was loaded for slaughter, and it is an extremely distressing experience, but that is all the more reason to listen to the science and not make the situation worse. It is simply wrong to suggest that that is not what people on both side of the debate are trying to achieve.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Of course, we will be arguing about the science, and both sides feel strongly that their scientific arguments are correct and that they have the correct scientists’ feedback on their side. That will continue throughout the debate.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Martin Horwood and Daniel Kawczynski

Monday 6th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Many hon. Members who have been in this place far longer than I have spent much time fighting for democracy and against extremism. However, the AV system will help extremist parties. There is a possibility that BNP second preferences could decide the outcome of a seat. Imagine a scene in the future in which the Labour and Conservative parties are neck and neck in a particular seat. As we watch on television, the second preferences of the BNP are counted and ultimately decide who wins the seat. How would we feel as the BNP supporters cheer and shout? The idea sends a shiver down my spine.

As chairman of the all-party group for the promotion of first past the post, I can inform the House that we now have 90 members. Our role is to promote and protect the first-past-the-post system that has served this country so well for generations. In fact, we have too many voting systems in the UK, and I would like to see one tried and tested voting system only—the first-past-the-post system.

As chairman of the all-party group, I am in a difficult position. Do I go with my gut reaction and vote against this legislation or do I fulfil my obligations and loyalty to my party leader, our Prime Minister, and to the party?

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I disagree with, but respect, the hon. Gentleman’s support for the first-past-the-post system. Would he not welcome the opportunity to campaign for it and vote for it in a referendum?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I will come on to that point, but I recall listening to the Prime Minister when he came to give Conservative Members an insight into the negotiations with the Liberal Democrats. The deal breaker, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said—and I read it over and over again so it is indelibly printed on my mind—was a referendum on this system. How on earth will that referendum help my constituents in Shrewsbury? I always refer to Mr. Roger Walker, my constituent who is dying of prostate cancer. For the last eight months, I have been trying to get him a special drug, abiraterone, to prolong his life. I have been unsuccessful to date, but I will not stop. How will this legislation help him to tackle his illness, which will deprive him of his life? It is the equivalent of watching Nero fiddle while Rome burns. We have so many problems in our country, yet we are being distracted by this ridiculous referendum, which is going to cost taxpayers between £80 million and £100 million. What an appalling waste of money, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) has said.

If the proposed system was used throughout the world, effectively and in a popular way, perhaps we should consider it, but it is used in only Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Australia. Only three countries in the world use it, and two of them, with all due respect, are rather small, minor powers.