Mr Alistair Carmichael
MP for Orkney and Shetland · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I do not know whether this is something I still need to declare, Mr Speaker, but I visited the Falkland Islands in 2003 as a guest of the Falkland Islands Government. They have never invited me back.”
“I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and also that my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon. What is happening was predictable because it was predicted. The Government were warned by the National Audit Office in June last year that they were unprepared for outbreaks of this sort.”
“The Minister is surely aware that there is no route to net zero that does not go through oil and gas hydrocarbons, and that not exploiting resources on the UK continental shelf leaves us reliant on imports, which also has carbon consequences that must be taken into account.”
“The transition to clean energy could be an opportunity to build a different model that would, to use the First Secretary of State’s own words, end “overly centralised decision making and over-privatisation”.”
“I welcome what the Prime Minister just said about strengthening farming. If he is serious about this, one of the first things he can do is ensure that our farmers do not have to compete with imported food that is produced to lower standards than we expect.”
“Q4. Like others, I have always respected the Prime Minister as somebody who was in politics because he wanted to give service to his country, and he has earned our gratitude for that. In my constituency, those who volunteer as coastguard rescue officers also do so from a wish to give service to their community.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,707 lines we hold for Mr Alistair Carmichael, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 95.
“It is surely time for the United Kingdom to respond, and that response must go beyond the hand-wringing that we have seen so far. We have witnessed the massive concern that now exists among the Hong Kongers about the British National (Overseas) passport scheme. It was always a messy compromise, and it was never going to be anything better than that, but I think we have reached a point at which that messy compromise is simply no longer sustainable. Surely Hong Kongers with BNO passport status should now be given the right of abode. As I said to the Foreign Secretary, it is shocking that the global head of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, should have been denied entry to Hong Kong this weekend.”
“The hon. Lady and I have worked on this issue in the past, so she will not be surprised to hear that I agree with her absolutely. That pressure is what is needed. It was shocking enough to hear about the arrest of medics—doctors and nurses—who were offering help to injured protesters in the streets, but the really shocking thing that we heard from Dr Mann last week was that when he took his testimony to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross, they said, “There is not much that we can do: we have to stay neutral in this matter.” You cannot stay neutral when you are faced with that sort of brutality, and when the most fundamental human rights are at stake. We have seen China renege on the joint declaration.”
“When the fires are extinguished, there is going to have to be a moment for learning lessons and drawing the links between these incidents and climate change. Our Government should take a leading role, but we would be better able to do so if we had not ourselves just announced that a review of the net zero carbon target had been put off until autumn. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Treasury about bringing that review forward?”
“As far as the claims made on behalf of Brexit regarding the future of the fishing industry are concerned, we shall have to wait and see. It will require the political will to deliver these promises, probably at the expense of commitments made to other communities and sectors.”
“Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) done what they said they were going to do and put the UK’s removal from the common fisheries policy in the withdrawal agreement and not in the political declaration. Had that been the case, we would be looking at an exit from the common fisheries policy at the end of the month. Of course, they did not do that, despite their promise. They did not do it because, frankly, they did not have the political will to do it. The removal of the United Kingdom from the common fisheries policy remains in the political declaration. It is not in the agreement that was negotiated by the Prime Minister either. Although we have never heard the reason why, I presume that there was not the political will to put it in the withdrawal agreement.”
“Some of that change in tone relates to the inevitability of the fact that the Bill will gain its Third Reading tonight. Another quite remarkable aspect is that there has been, if anything, an even greater inflation of the claims made about what will be possible. On that, time will tell. Listening to the speech from the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who was present until a minute or two ago, I was struck by what he said about the fishing industry and the opportunities that would be open to it outside the common fisheries policy. I have heard him make that speech many times over the years. It would, of course, have been a done deal had the Government led by the right hon.”
“Like others have done, may I welcome you back to your restored position in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker? We very much look forward to your presence moderating our proceedings in the years to come. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on her maiden speech, which was a very accomplished contribution. There are a number of conventions and courtesies that need to be observed, but, as well as managing to observe them, the hon. Lady had something of substance and significance to say. I am sure we look forward to hearing her future contributions in the House. A number of contributors to this debate have spoken about the way in which the tone of the debate has changed in the past few days, and that is a fair point to make.”
“Farming, of course, is the staple that keeps our economy in the Northern Isles stable and growing. That company tells me that for the past 20 years it has done everything that any Government would have asked it to. As a food producer, it has not gone for the low end of the market, but for the top—the niche market and the high-quality produce. Part of the reason that it went for that high-end product is that it was able to export. If its exports are now going to be put at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of tariffs coming from a no-deal Brexit, the future of those 23 jobs and the farms around Orkney that supply the company will be bleak to say the very least.”
“If after 31 December we do find ourselves in the situation I have described, the future of the United Kingdom as a unitary state will be that much more bleak—and that is quite apart from the division and discord that we have heard mooted from the SNP Benches today. I am also concerned that this deal very much leaves open the possibility of a no-deal Brexit at the end of 2020. In fact, the inclusion of clause 33 makes it that much more likely. My views on a no-deal Brexit are formed and reinforced by the businesses that come and talk to me. I think of one significant food-producing company in Orkney that directly employs 23 people, which may not sound like a great deal, but it is also an important part of the supply chain for farming in Orkney.”
“The Liberal Democrats will vote against the Bill on Third Reading, because we believe that this is a bad deal that risks the future integrity of the United Kingdom as a single unitary state, principally and most immediately because it risks the possibility of leaving Northern Ireland subject to different regulatory arrangements from the rest of the United Kingdom. That was something against which the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), warned, along with Ruth Davidson, the then leader of the Scottish Conservatives. Those warnings were good and the former Prime Minister was wise to heed them, but the current Prime Minister has ignored them.”
“That is absolutely the case, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that he will never get me to defend the common fisheries policy. But what follows thereafter will be down to the political decisions made by this Government and others, and to whether they have the political will to deliver the things that they have promised. He will remember the damage that was done to his party by a previous generation of Conservative Ministers who, at the time of our accession to the EEC in 1975, regarded the fishing industry as expendable. That is why the promises become ever more extravagant, but the more extravagant they are, the greater the consequences will be if they are not kept.”
“It grieves me enormously that the opportunities that we will now pass on to my sons—the next generation of my family—will be lesser than those that we inherited. It is for that reason that we shall vote against this Bill on Third Reading.”
“I think that to describe it as oven-ready was actually untypically understated for the Prime Minister. Many of us on the Opposition Benches see it in fact as being more half-baked than merely oven-ready. Ultimately, however, it is a deal that is going to leave us poorer and more isolated on the world stage, and it will affect us all. Like many in this House, I am the first generation of my family to have had the opportunity to come here and to serve my community in this way. I did that because I was given opportunities principally by access to higher education, which I and my sisters all had. As a result of those opportunities, I have been able to develop whatever talents I have had.”
“If ever there were an illustration of the way in which we risk diminishing our standing on the world stage, that is most surely it. As we have heard, the Secretary of State’s Department is due to be wound up after the end of the month, but there is no doubting that even after that—even after 31 December—Brexit will continue to be a political phenomenon that will have a dominant effect on our politics for years to come. I make this plea today to those on the Treasury Bench: even if there is not to be a Department for it to shadow, this House should continue to have a Select Committee to look at the nature of the impact that Brexit has on our economy and our society. The mantra on which the Government won their majority was that they would “get Brexit done”. The Prime Minister told us that he had an “oven-ready” deal.”
“I fear that the hon. Gentleman may well be right on that. As I said in relation to the fishing industry, time will eventually tell. I fear, as I say, that he is probably right. The worst of it is that I really hope he is not, because the people who will suffer are not the people sitting in here but those in the crofts, in the hill farms and in the fishing communities around his constituency and mine. Another reason we consider this to be a bad Bill is that it is another step in the walk that the Government are taking away from commitments they have previously given on environmental protections, labour rights, food standards, and—worst of all, in a really quite mean-minded step—the protections that would be given to refugee children.”
“On the subject of the quantum for the islands’ deal, to which the Secretary of State has already referred, will he confirm that he will pursue with the Treasury a basis that is different from the per capita funding of other deals, because otherwise the deal for the islands will never be a meaningful one?”
“That is why I think this is perfectly legitimate. We have heard the assurances given by those on the Treasury Bench tonight. They may be right, in which case we will have an agreement concluded by the end of this year, but if they are not, those assurances will stand on the record, and the Minister and his colleagues will have to be accountable for them. I suspect that we now have a choice between close alignment, because that will be all that is possible in the 11-month negotiation period, and no deal. It will be interesting to see whether the unity that has been present behind the Secretary of State on the Government Benches today is maintained after that point.”
“As other Members have pointed out, it is perfectly legitimate—we are entitled to do so—for those of us on the Opposition Benches, and I suspect a number of the better-informed Government Members, to point out that the previous implementation agreement reached by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was for 21 months. At that point, we thought that was exceptionally ambitious, but now we find that it can all be done in 11 months. I have been a Member of this House for over 18 and a half years. You learn a thing or two in that time, Sir Roger. You know that, because you have been here even longer than me. One of the things we learn is to take assurances of that sort with a measure of some scepticism when we hear them from those on the Treasury Bench, whichever party is in government.”
“He was quite right to put that before the Committee, and it is perfectly legitimate that the Government should do so. However, I would suggest that he took it one step further than was sensible when he suggested that clause 33 was necessary for the Government to meet their manifesto obligations. Whether or not a Government meet their manifesto obligations is essentially a matter of politics, not law, and for the Secretary of State to suggest it is necessary to have a clause of this sort to meet their manifesto obligations is something of an overstatement. It would be possible for them to meet their manifesto obligations without recourse to clause 33.”
“In proposed new paragraph 11B in clause 4, relating to the powers of the Scottish Parliament, he will see that the devolved Administrations have no power to legislate outside their devolved competences. It is of course in the nature of devolution that the Administrations have no power, so I suggest to the Secretary of State that the inclusion of that provision is at the very least somewhat otiose. He would have to come up with a better explanation than he did to the hon. and learned Lady as to why it is necessary to have, or not to have, a similar provision with regard to the powers of this House. The Secretary of State talked in his opening remarks about the commitment in the Conservative party manifesto, in respect of which it now has a handsome majority in this House.”
“I am mindful of your strictures with regard to time, Sir Roger. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said during his opening remarks that he did not intend to press new clause 4 to a Division. If it assists the Committee, I can indicate that it is not my intention to press new clause 36, which stands in my name and in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do, however, wish to speak to those. Before I do so, I would like to pick up on the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) to the Secretary of State with regard to the powers given to the United Kingdom Government and to the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations. I found the Secretary of State’s explanation to be a little less than clear and somewhat less than convincing.”
“The provision for an extension to be concluded by 1 July was in the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister negotiated. Did he do that because he lacked confidence?”
“There is every indication that it is going to be a challenging negotiation, so what are the Minister and his officials doing now to ensure that the voices of our fishing industries are heard and properly represented at that Council?”
“T2. May I first say, Mr Speaker, that I was one of the early adopters of Bercow for Speaker, as we called the campaign in 2009? Unfortunately, I am part of a much diminished band in that regard now. While I think we would all occasionally have found ourselves wondering in quiet moments just exactly what we had done, I am also confident in saying that at the end of the day none of us who backed you in 2009 have ever, as parliamentarians, regretted the decision that we took then. I thank you and your family for the service that you have given. The December Fisheries Council this year will be on the Monday and Tuesday following the general election.”
“It is one of the defining characteristics of a nation state that goods moving into a territory are subject to regulations that are not there for goods that move within it. That is why the withdrawal agreement is a threat to the future of the Union that is the United Kingdom. It is why the former Prime Minister was absolutely right to discount completely the possibility of a customs border down the Irish sea. Why has the Conservative and Unionist party changed its mind?”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. “We could not support any deal that creates a border of any kind in the Irish Sea and undermines the Union or leads to Northern Ireland having a different relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK, beyond what currently exists.” Those are not my words, but the words of the former Secretary of State for Scotland and Ruth Davidson, the recently resigned leader of the Scottish Conservative party—an intervention that was described at the time by an unnamed Scottish Conservative spokesperson as “an article of faith” for the Scottish Conservatives. Can the Secretary of State tell the House: when did the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party lose its faith?”
“The creation of a customs border down the Irish sea and the necessary declarations that we now hear will be necessary as a consequence is something about which Ruth Davidson and the Secretary of State’s right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland warned last year. They said then, and it is true now, that it will undermine the Union. Why is the Secretary of State disregarding his right hon. Friend’s advice?”
“The requirement to lay treaties for 21 days before ratification is contained in section 20 of CRAG 2010. Can the Leader of the House point out to me where in section 20 of that Act the distinction is drawn between treaties that are legislative and non-legislative in their effect?”
“Knitwear is something that defines Shetland in the eyes of many across the world. Just in the last week, we have seen visitors coming to the isles from right around the globe as part of an enormously successful Shetland Wool Week—especially coming from the United States of America. Does the Minister understand that the damage that will be caused by tariffs of this sort is not just about manufacturing and exports, but about tourism? The communities that rely on our defining products, such as Scotch whisky and knitwear, are some of the smallest and most economically fragile to be found anywhere, and jobs that are lost there will not be easily replaced.”
“May I take the Leader of the House back to his assertion that the 12 Bills that have been started by the Government and are still outstanding are somehow blocked by the House? I offer him one example. The Fisheries Bill is of tremendous importance to my constituents. It passed this House at Second Reading without Division, as I recall. In Committee, only one minor amendment was made to it. There is a broad measure of cross-party support for it, yet is has sat in parliamentary limbo since the end of November. If there is a blockage, that blockage surely is within the Government and not Parliament. Will we get that Bill before the Government try to prorogue again?”
“If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, we were not elected to avoid making decisions, why did he seek to support a Prorogation when we still had 12 Bills outstanding?”
“Surely the point is that what we get with a general election is a change of Government. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a system of government, which is a quite different thing.”
“A no-deal Brexit will be catastrophic for Scotland’s hill farmers, especially those looking to export sheepmeat to the European Union. That is not just my view but the view of the National Farmers Union Scotland and the NFU across the four parts of the United Kingdom. Can the Secretary of State give me and them some assurance that he will not just sit in Cabinet and watch their livelihoods destroyed?”
“These documents show that the college accepted that there was a risk that “the skills being trained are used to identify individuals who later go on to be tortured or subjected to other human rights abuses.” They decided that these risks could be “mitigated” by the college, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, preparing a press statement emphasising that the forensics training is part of a wider programme to assist the Saudi authorities move to democratic policing methods. That was a thin defence in 2016. Having seen the events in 2017 and the mass execution of 37 people earlier this year, I am afraid that that defence simply does not stand anymore. Will the Minister tell us what attitude the Government now take to the relationship between the UK College of Policing and Saudi Arabia?”
“I have heard other concerns and received from Reprieve a compelling briefing, which argues that the problem is not just that we are not saying enough, but that sometimes what we do aids and abets the conduct I have described. Reprieve has brought it to my attention that the UK College of Policing has provided forensics training to the Saudi Ministry of the Interior since 2009; I have commented publicly in the House about this before. In 2016, Reprieve obtained documents from a proposal by the College of Policing to extend its training of Saudi police to areas including cyber-security, mobile phone analysis and IT digital forensics, including data decryption and the retrieval of deleted files.”
“We should be doing that while there is still a prospect of bringing these three young men relief and mercy. That raises the question why all this should matter to us in the United Kingdom. We know there are many regimes across the world that are similarly despotic and, in some cases—although probably not many—even worse in their human rights abuse and their use of capital punishment than Saudi Arabia. I do not want this debate to be an exercise in hand-wringing on the international stage and saying, “Isn’t this dreadful.” It has to be an open and honest examination of how we see these issues and what we, as a commercial and security intelligence partner of Saudi Arabia, are prepared to do to help to effect meaningful change. The Government are often criticised for not being active enough.”
“Surely, if that policy remains meaningful, it demands that representations of the strongest and most public sort be made to the Saudi Arabian Government on behalf of these three young men. That is a common theme in all the representations I have received from organisations that provided briefings for today’s debate. Yes, the Government will say the right things in this country, but they say them privately and they do not say them loudly and publicly enough when it comes to their dealings with the Saudi Government. In relation to the Khashoggi killing, we have seen that the Saudi Arabian Government will take heed and will respond to international pressure and criticism. Surely we should not be leaving it until the executions have happened to criticise them.”
“All were held in solitary confinement for long periods, during which time they were given no access to legal representation. Their families did not know where they were and they could not contact them. All were tried at the specialised criminal court, which has been widely criticised for failing to meet the basic standards of a fair trial and for its use as a tool of political repression. Despite widespread international condemnation, the Saudi authorities have never investigated the serious allegations of torture. Having exhausted all domestic legal remedies, the three now await execution, unless they can receive pardons from King Salman. The United Kingdom has a long-standing and distinguished policy of opposing the use of the death penalty in all circumstances.”
“That remains relevant today, because, according to Reprieve, there are currently at least three detainees in Saudi Arabia who are subject to conviction awaiting execution. Ali al-Nimr, Abdullah al-Zaher and Dawoud al-Marhoon were all arrested in 2012 following anti-regime demonstrations held in the Qatif region of Saudi Arabia’s eastern province. All were under 18 at the time of the alleged offences. In international law that makes them children and makes their execution illegal. All were tortured extensively while they were detained and forced to sign false confessions to serious crimes, punishable by death, on which the trial courts later relied to convict them. The three men were not informed of their charges or presented with an arrest warrant.”
“These are not extravagant requests, and they are the very least that we should be taking to the Saudi Government if the relationship we have is meaningful and not one-sided. As the House is aware, on 23 April this year there was a programme of 37 executions, including, we understand, one by crucifixion, following two mass trials: the Qatif 24 case and the Iran spy case. This matter was ventilated fully as a result of Mr Speaker granting an urgent question, so I will not rehearse the detail at this time, but there is one aspect I want to remind the House about: three of the detainees who were executed were children at the time of their detention and charge. Capital punishment for children is absolutely forbidden under international law.”
“In its general comment on article 7 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the United Nations Human Rights Committee stated that “provisions should be made for detainees to be held in places officially recognized as places of detention”— presumably not normally including five-star hotels— “and for their names and places of detention, as well as for the names of persons responsible for their detention, to be kept in registers readily available and accessible to those concerned, including relatives and friends.” Fourthly and finally, we should ask the Saudi Arabian Government for the release of frozen assets that are currently held illegally. If the assets have been frozen without any proper legal basis, surely we should be saying that they should be returned, unless formal charges can be brought.”
“As an absolute minimum, they should be given the specific grounds for their arrest and be able to contest their detention fairly and promptly before an independent and impartial judge, with appropriate legal representation, and there should be periodic reviews of their case. Those who are detained in the Ritz-Carlton and elsewhere in Saudi Arabia receive none of that most basic legal entitlement. Thirdly, we should ask that people who are not charged with a crime be released. Again, that is a basic principle of international human rights law.”
“To this day, Saudi Arabia has not offered any official explanation of how al-Qahtani died, although it is interesting to note that on 7 November the President of the United States tweeted: “I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing....”. Sometimes, when he takes to Twitter, the President manages to say so much more than I suspect he intended. Secondly, we should ask for clarification from the Saudi authorities about the specific charges on which those who remain in detention are being held. That is a basic norm of international law: a person should know the basis on which they are being held and the charges should be for recognisable crimes.”
“Their arrest was believed to be in retaliation for their representations and advocacy on behalf of detained family members. Beyond that there is no clear basis for their continuing detention. The Government have not frozen any of their assets or asked for financial settlements. My requests of the Government and the Foreign Office are fourfold. We should ask, first, for proof of life of those who were detained. On 12 March 2018, the New York Times report said that Ritz-Carlton detainees required hospitalisation for physical abuse. Major General Ali al-Qahtani, an aide to Prince Turki, later died in custody. Reports suggest that his “neck was twisted unnaturally as though it had been broken” and his body had burn marks that appeared to be the result of electric shocks.”
“Those who remain in detention without clear legal status include Prince Turki bin Abdullah, the former governor of Riyadh and son of the late King Abdullah. He is obviously seen as a key political rival of the current Crown Prince. He remains in detention without charge. His associate, Faisal al-Jarba, is also in detention without charge. The Washington Post reported in June that Jordanian authorities detained him in Oman, where he had fled to seek safety; they eventually drove him to the Saudi border and handed him over to the Saudi authorities. Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz bin Salman and his father, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman bin Mohammad—both businessmen—have remained in detention since January 2018 without charge or trial.”
“I have to say that of all the accommodation that could be afforded to those who get on the wrong side of the regimes under which they live, the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh is probably not the worst. None the less, it remains a serious matter, not least because it highlights one of my main concerns: the lack of proper regard for the basic norms of international and domestic law. As a consequence of that arrest programme, there was a process of forced transfer of assets totalling approximately $100 billion, we believe. Many of those held have been tortured, and there have been fatalities. We understand that approximately 200 detainees remain in custody as a consequence of the Crown Prince’s move.”
“This is an area where the United Kingdom Government, as a partner of the Saudi Arabian Government in commercial and security and intelligence matters, can do more. They should be looking at some of their current actions. I will focus on people being held as political detainees following the mass arrests on 4 November 2017, others who remain in detention subject to capital punishment, and our assistance to and engagement with Saudi Arabia. It is well known that on 4 November 2017, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman arrested several hundred of his political opponents, as he probably saw them. It was a mass arrest, and those arrested and detained were rounded up and taken to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.”
“Those matters are fully disclosed in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is right that we recognise, applaud and encourage progress on standards of governance and human rights. I approach human rights in that region in a spirit of humility. I am aware that many of the things for which we criticise Gulf regimes were part of our society and law just a few decades ago, or are even part of it today. On workers’ rights and standards, for example, let us not forget that for all the legislative and regulatory standards that we have in this country, not long ago several dozen cockle pickers perished in Morecambe bay as a result of the fact that they had been engaged illicitly. Even with all those caveats, when I look at Saudi Arabia today I see a bad human rights situation, and I regret to say that it is getting worse.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered human rights in Saudi Arabia and the detention of opponents of the regime. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time in Parliament to debate our relations with one of the most important operators in one of the most important regions in the world. Saudi Arabia is a dominant force in the Gulf—an area of significant importance to this country—a significant trading partner, and a significant partner in security and intelligence matters. I am not naive about how we should approach these matters; I am aware of how politics in the Gulf works. I chair the all-party British-Qatar group, and last year I was a guest of the Kuwaiti Government in that country.”
“It is all very well to stand here, in the comfort of the House of Commons, and criticise Saudi Arabia for its human rights, but I am pretty sure that, if we were to go out and ask anybody we stopped on the street here what they thought of the treatment of detainees and citizens in Saudi Arabia, they would be pretty appalled. I think they would actually be angry if they knew that money paid by taxpayers in this country was being used in such a way that it could contribute to and abet those human rights abuses, and that no explanation for that would be forthcoming. That is why I think it is important that the House debates this subject today. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time, and I hope that we will have time to hear the fullest possible answers from the Minister.”