HC Deb 24 January 1996 vol 270 cc453-62

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

10.15 pm
Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead)

I hope that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), will accept that I mean him no disrespect when I say that he should not be here this evening. Given the great interest among the British people and internationally about the subject of Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia, and given the intense controversy surrounding the Government's plan to deport the leader of the Saudi opposition, the Foreign Secretary himself should have come to the Chamber tonight to defend the Government's position. His absence is an act of cowardice, which is all the more shameful in view of the important role that he played—as we shall see in a moment—in the plot that was hatched many months ago to rid the Saudi tyrants of this turbulent Muslim priest.

As the organiser of the "Masari must stay" campaign, I want to deal with the professor's deportation, but only inasmuch as his case crystallises the corrupt and infectious nature of our relationship with that medieval, absolutist royal dictatorship. It is my contention that our unhealthy obsession with, and increasing dependence upon, the single-family rulers of Saudi Arabia is demeaning to us as a country, is diminishing to us as a democracy and is potentially disastrous for us as a trading and manufacturing economy.

We have reached a nadir in the Government's brazen and almost certainly unlawful decision to deport a peaceful law-abiding refugee and probably send him to his death in Dominica. However, the illness of which I speak is of far longer standing. It reaches to the commanding heights of the military industrial complex, into the inner sanctum of the Cabinet and even into the family home of a former Prime Minister of this country, Baroness Thatcher.

The infamous Vickers memorandum, which was revealed by The Guardian on 6 January, establishes the nexus as clearly as the most fantastic conspiracy theorist could have dreamt. In the memorandum, two captains of industry—Dick Evans, chief executive of British Aerospace, and Sir Colin Chandler, chief executive of Vickers, who was knighted by Her Majesty the Queen—reveal the complex web that has been woven.

That web encompasses the British arms industry, the Government and Foreign Office grandees such as Andrew Green—who was revealed by The Independent newspaper to have been at one and the same time the head of the middle east desk at the Foreign Office, ambassador designate to Saudi Arabia and a director of Vickers, a private arms company. It involves the British security services and a brutal foreign autocracy. It is the last absolute monarchy in the world, surviving 350 years after the death of the last such monarch in this country, who was executed not a quarter of a mile from here under the authority of the House.

The purpose of the web was to conspire to sell more and more guns to that dictatorship not for jobs, but for private profit, and to conspire with its customer to silence or to "stifle personally"—in the chilling words of the memorandum—any opposition to the conspiracy, however peaceful, representative or democratic. No other construction is possible than that the memorandum was referring to, at best, the kidnapping or more likely the assassination of the Saudi opposition leader.

Last August, in an interview given at his request to the Saudi-controlled newspaper Al-Hayat, the Foreign Secretary carefully laid the ground for the conspiracy. Breaking all protocol in his desperation to appease the Saudi potentates, the Foreign Secretary singled out Professor al-Masari—then an applicant for political asylum—for savage personal attack. He said that the professor represented nothing, but by what process the Foreign Secretary discovered that is unclear, as there are no elections of any kind in Saudi Arabia and no such thing as opinion polls. In any case, the Foreign Secretary has never been known for his special insight into, or interest in, the Arab world.

The Foreign Secretary contradicted his point by raising and repeatedly returning to the al-Masari case, showing an unhealthy obsession with it. In that interview, the British position began to change. Previously, the stated position was: We can only take action against deeds, not words. Thereafter, the position was, "Never mind the law. Never mind our international obligations. This man's faxes and e-mail are dangerous to the continued survival of the rich milch cow that is Saudi Arabia under the dictatorship. He must, one way or another, be stifled personally."

The wave of revulsion that followed the al-Masari deportation order signed on 3 January was considerable. It can be charted in newspaper editorials across the political spectrum, correspondence columns and the torrent of parliamentary questions and motions, and in the huge number of people of all political colours who are united in the campaign against Professor al-Masari's deportation.

I visited Saudi Arabia in 1989 as part of a group of parliamentarians—all specialists in the middle east—under the able leadership of Lord Pym. That visit took place in the wake of a squall in British-Saudi relations, after the publication of a private memorandum by Sir James Craig—the recently retired British ambassador to the kingdom. Although years had passed, the regime was still smarting from the British television documentary, "Death of a Princess".

At every meeting at the highest levels, our delegation was regaled with complaints by the Saudis about the licence, as they saw it, of the British press. With great skill and incomparable charm, Lord Pym painstakingly described the nature of press freedom in Britain, humorously explaining that politicians were frequently on the receiving end of that freedom but that there was nothing we could do about it.

Late one night, I spoke to Lord Pym about the pressure to which the Saudis were subjecting him. Taking a long sip of water, as was his wont, Lord Pym said something that I have never forgotten: "You see, my boy, we are here to soft-soap really—but we can never, never apologise." What a distance we have travelled since then, under the corrosive influence of the Saudi embrace.

Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the Register of Members' Interests, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) declares a remunerated directorship of Hawk Communications International Ltd.— a communications company…to assist democratic development in the Middle East". I am seeking to establish whether the hon. Gentleman has an interest to declare in relation to Saudi Arabia.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes)

It is not for the Chair to find out such things. If the hon. Member concerned feels that he has an interest to declare, he should declare it.

Mr. Galloway

If I had an interest to declare, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have declared it. All the interests in Saudi Arabia sit on Conservative Benches—as is clear from the catcalling even from the Treasury Bench. I have no interest to declare except in democratic reform in Arabia and in the overthrow of the absolutist monarchy in that country. I resent the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

In Lord Pym's words, "We are here to soft-soap really—but we can never, never apologise." What a distance we have travelled since then, under the corrosive influence of the Saudi embrace. Let us walk down the road that we have travelled and see what landmarks paved the way to that sorry pass. The most corrupting turn was when we opened the door to the Aladdin's cave of the Al Yamamah arms deal and gorged ourselves in a trough of larceny and backhanders. We have to face the fact as a country that that contract was landed by British Aerospace as a result of corruption on an unprecedented scale.

Enormous bribes—[Interruption.] Interestingly, someone on the Treasury Bench has just said "Hear, hear."

Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham)

I said, "Hear, hear."

Mr. Galloway

Enormous bribes and commissions of up to 30 per cent. of the multi-billion pound deal were paid. They were shared between the Defence Minister, Prince Sultan and his family, and the sons of King Fand, notably Prince Mohammed, about whom I will say more later. If we are talking about declarations of interest, a whole gang of middlemen was involved in London in that affair and made millions of pounds in pay-offs.

Those middlemen included Wafic Said, who became a business partner of the right hon. Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) and a close friend of, and generous benefactor to, the Conservative party. They included Mark Thatcher, the son of the then Prime Minister, who gave 10 Downing street as his address at the time, but who was later given his own house and other lavish benefits by Wafic Said and who has become mysteriously and inordinately rich.

Among those who shared the millions of pounds sucked from those commissions was the former Cabinet Minister and former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for South Thanet. Some of those secret commissions on the Al Yamamah deal have been handled by British Aerospace through a British business man, Douglas Leese, who has close connections with an offshore bank, the Bank of NT Butterfield in Bermuda.

As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a report by Sir John Bourn of the National Audit Office, which reveals some of those commissions, has been suppressed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts for more than three years. Public opinion is increasingly asking why.

Another part of the deal was concluded in 1988, when the regime agreed to buy minesweepers from Vosper Thorneycroft. Vosper used as its agent a Saudi named Fahd al-Athel, who, like the right hon. Member for South Thanet, worked for Prince Mohammed. Vosper made huge payments to al-Athel's company, which were laundered with the knowledge of Vosper through a front company in Saudi Arabia and were divided 20 per cent. to al-Athel, 40 per cent. to Prince Mohammed and 40 per cent. to unnamed others, some of them known to be prominent figures in British life.

In a third part of the Al Yamamah deal, Colonel Thomas Dooley, an executive of Sikorsky, testified in a United States court that, while trying to sell Black Hawk helicopters to the Saudi regime, there took place what he described in his testimony as a "competition for bribes". He said that Prince Bandar told him what bribes must be paid for the deal, through which middleman they must be paid, and how he would distribute the money to other members of the royal family.

In a fourth part of the Al Yamamah deal, the right hon. Member for South Thanet was hired personally by a British arms company—Astra—which hoped to land a contract to fit guns to those helicopters. The right hon. Member has acknowledged that he was paid to introduce his business partner, the aforementioned Fahd al-Athel, to Astra, which was also paying him, as a commission agent.

The bribes and commissions linked to those deals extended to every subcontract. Last year, Thorn EMI admitted that it had paid bribes totalling 26 per cent., which were illegal even by Saudi law by a factor of five, on the sale of smart fuses for the bombs carried by the Saudi Tornados. Half of those bribes paid off the Saudi princes and the other half went—via a small-scale arms dealer, Michael Gay, who, interestingly enough, is based near the British Aerospace headquarters outside Preston—to those mysterious bank accounts in the Bank of NT Butterfield in Bermuda. There, like other things that venture into the Bermuda triangle, they promptly disappeared.

The British Government insist that they are expelling al-Masari because of their new-found concern for British industrial jobs. In fact, it is British Conservative politicians, their relatives and business associates, and the revolving-door arms barons-cum Whitehall mandarins who are milking the Saudi cash cow. As the newly elected president of the engineering union, Davey Hall, a man who has represented Vickers workers in the north-east for so many years, has pointed out, a future based on pandering to unstable and unrepresentative middle eastern dictators can never guarantee a secure future for British defence exporters.

In fact, Vickers is a case in point. An order for the very same Challenger tanks for which Sir Colin Chandler is prepared to sacrifice human rights, to sell them to bloated Saudi princes, was one of the first contracts to be cancelled after the overthrow of the Shah of Iran—a decision that came about precisely because of the craven support, until the last hours, of successive British Governments for the despot in Iran. It is by investment in high-tech performance that British manufacturing will sell around the world, not by giving baksheesh to Saudi princes whose days are, in any case, numbered.

The contagion of corruption is not confined to business or to Government. The television film "Death of a Princess" is now under lock and key, and all requests for footage from it are routinely denied. Its producer has taken an inexplicable vow of silence, and will make no comment about the film to anyone.

Nothing, however, could be more humiliating for the world's pre-eminent broadcasting organisation, the BBC, than to have had its editorial integrity prostituted by its reckless commercial involvement with the Saudi royal family. In the wake of the deportation order against al-Masari, all reports of the case on the BBC's Arabic World Service Television were censored by the corporation's partner, the Saudi-owned Orbit Communications, based in Rome. The BBC has still been unable to restore its once incomparable reputation throughout the middle east, despite intensive negotiations with Orbit, and the Secretary of State for National Heritage has still not explained the circumstances of this censorship to the House.

Who could have predicted that the country which made "Death of a Princess" would itself fall victim to the Saudi virus which has strangled the fragile flower of press freedom throughout the middle east by corruption and larceny?

It is the Government's case that Britain's strategic and economic interests are bound up with the propping up of what, by anyone's standards, is a rotten and crumbling dictatorship. It is our contention that only by befriending the people of Arabia and extending help to those working for freedom, human rights and democracy in Arabia can we guarantee our long-term future. At the moment, we are guaranteeing the enduring enmity of those people by propping up the people who oppress them. That is why the British people have risen against this decision—and why the British courts will overturn it.

10.32 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley)

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) has given us the opportunity to debate Britain's relations with Saudi Arabia, and I welcome that—although it will come as no surprise to him to learn that I do not agree with most, if any, of his remarks. The hon. Gentleman says that it is a disgrace that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is not here. That is absolute rubbish. Can he give me a precedent of a Cabinet Minister taking an Adjournment debate, particularly since I am the Minister responsible for our relations with Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Galloway

rose—

Mr. Hanley

The hon. Gentleman did not allow any interventions—

Mr. Galloway

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister asked me a question.

Mr. Hanley

No, the hon. Member may not answer.

Mr. Galloway

Douglas Hurd answered my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on the subject of Lockerbie just a few months ago.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I deprecate this kind of behaviour. It is very important that the courtesies be observed. Mr. Hanley.

Mr. Hanley

If there is a—

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Foreign Secretary did answer me on Lockerbie, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Hanley

I find very few precedents for the fact that not one Labour Front Bencher is present for the debate on a matter as important as this. Indeed, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) did not come in until some 15 minutes after the hon. Member for Hillhead had started his speech. I believe that the presence of so many Ministers on the Government Bench shows how importantly we take our relations with Saudi Arabia.

The United Kingdom has a long-standing and close relationship with Saudi Arabia, based on mutual respect and shared interests. Not only is Saudi Arabia a country of great strategic, economic and commercial importance to us, but there are many ties of history and friendship between Britain and that kingdom, including well-developed cultural, educational and sporting exchanges.

Britain's links with that country date back to the founding of the modern state of Saudi Arabia in the 1920s and 1930s. Britain never acted as protector of the kingdom, as it did with some of the smaller Gulf states. Instead, the relationship has always been one between two independent sovereign states. Britain recognised the important strategic role that Saudi Arabia was likely to play in the post-war world when Winston Churchill met King Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, on the Suez canal in February 1945. Since then, successive British Governments, with our allies in America and Europe, have sought to ensure that Saudi Arabia remains a force for stability in the region.

Our bilateral trading relations are extensive. In 1994, visible exports to the kingdom amounted to more than £1.5 billion—a trading surplus of around £800 million. The figures for 1995 are likely to he even better. There is a major invisible account with numerous British financial institutions and companies investing in Saudi Arabia to the tune of £1 billion or more annually, and Saudi Arabians are investing in the City of London. With the exceptions of Hong Kong and Singapore, Saudi Arabia is our largest export market outside the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. There are more than 100 Saudi-British joint ventures currently under negotiation, ranging from construction to pharmaceuticals.

Saudi. Arabia is also our biggest defence sales market in the world. I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the Chamber. The sale of military equipment, and the provision of military advice and support is, without doubt, a vital strand in our relationship. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in the Al Yamamah project, which accounts for tens of thousands of jobs in the defence and defence-related sector and contributes to the overall health of our aerospace industry. That may not be important to the hon. Member for Hillhead, but it is important to many thousands of industrial workers throughout the United Kingdom.

Saudi Arabia is not just a trading partner, but a country whose foreign policy has shared similar objectives to our own. Whether in the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the Organisation of Islamic States or other organisations or groupings of which it is a member, Saudi Arabia has played a crucial role in the promotion of moderate and sensible policies. During the cold war, Saudi Arabia, while at all times remaining staunchly independent, was a vehement opponent of communism and the spread of Soviet influence throughout the region.

Saudi Arabia has been in the forefront of efforts to establish credible regional security blocs. In 1981, it helped to create the Gulf Co-operation Council which, although not perfect, has none the less proved to be a workable model for developing regional co-operation. There is a growing relationship between the GCC and the European Union and the next in a series of ministerial level meetings will take place in April.

We share with Saudi Arabia a particular concern for the continued stability of the Gulf, to which we make a substantial contribution on the ground and at the United Nations. We stood shoulder to shoulder with Saudi Arabia in the Gulf war in 1991, with the largest deployment of British armed forces since the second world war, and we are ready to do the same again if necessary. As the leading member of the GCC and our major Gulf ally, Saudi Arabia played a vital role in the coalition against Iraq, helping to defeat the expansionist ambitions of Saddam Hussein—I think that we know the hon. Gentleman's views on that subject—and has since been steadfast in support of all UN resolutions designed to force Iraq to adhere to internationally acceptable standards of behaviour.

Mr. Tim Devlin (Stockton, South)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hanley

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not give way as I have a lot to say and very little time.

Saudi Arabia remains an important bulwark against any further Iraqi attempts to threaten or invade its neighbours. The Saudis share our suspicions of Iranian policies in the region and they share our support for the middle east peace process. Saudi Arabia has been a bastion of stability and moderation in a region not always known for those qualities.

Our warm friendship with Saudi Arabia is reflected in a number of ways, which perhaps I can illustrate. There are close relations between the two royal families. Hundreds of thousands of Saudi Arabians visit Britain every year on holiday. Many have homes here and look upon Britain as their second home. They are important contributors to the British economy. So, too, are the nearly 30,000 Britons who work in Saudi Arabia. Many official visits have taken place between the two countries.

Saudi Arabia has enjoyed an impressive rate of economic growth and stability. It is important for the economic well-being not only of Britain, but of the whole industrialised world, to ensure ready access to middle eastern oil at an economic price. Saudi Arabia, the leading member of OPEC, has by far the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world. Saudi Arabia is therefore a key element in that equation. Her policy of sustaining a moderate and stable oil price has benefited Britain enormously.

As our Prime Minister recently emphasised, the continued stability and security of Saudi Arabia are vital to the health of the global economy, to the prosperity of British industry and to the preservation of so many jobs in this country.

The hon. Gentleman, as he has made clear on many occasions inside and outside the House, is a fervent supporter of the beliefs of Dr. al-Masari. Dr. al-Masari has launched a vituperative campaign from London aimed at the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian regime. He has at times appeared to condone violence. He has abused our hospitality.

The hon. Gentleman sees Dr. al-Masari as a western-style liberal. That is clearly not the case, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. Dr. al-Masari's organisation—the Committee for the Defence of Sharia Law—indicates that he would insist on an even stricter application of Islamic law than that followed by the Saudi Government, who themselves adhere to a strict interpretation of Islam. In recent newspaper interviews, Dr. al-Masari has clearly stated his support for an Islamic republic in which only Islamic political parties committed to ruling the country strictly by Koranic law would be able to stand for election.

Mr. Galloway

How many parties, Islamic or otherwise, are allowed to exist in Saudi Arabia now? And how many elections, of any kind, for anything, are allowed now?

Mr. Hanley

I am not in any way trying to say that Dr. al-Masari's views are different from many in Saudi Arabia. What I am trying to say is that Dr. al-Masari is not the liberal saint that the hon. Gentleman likes to suggest.

Not only would Dr. al-Masari ban any party other than those which are strictly bound by Koranic law, but his prescription is for a Saudi Government on the Iranian model. He has also been quoted as following strict anti-blasphemy laws, as wanting women to stay at home and claiming that women sin if they do not submit to sex with their husbands at any time and in any manner, and as favouring stricter applications of the punishments of execution by beheading for criminals and amputations for theft. That does not make him a western-style liberal in my book.

Mr. Galloway

Rubbish.

Mr. Hanley

I refer the hon. Gentleman to articles in the press setting out Dr. al-Masari's views.

The United Kingdom takes seriously its obligation to protect those who seek asylum, but asylum seekers cannot pick and choose which countries suit them best. Against that background, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has directed that Dr al-Masari be removed to a country which is willing to receive. him and which is a party to the 1951 refugee convention and the 1967 protocol. We believe that that decision, against which Dr. al-Masari has appealed, was made in accordance with our law and our international rights and obligations.

The immigration rules provide that an asylum application may be refused without substantive consideration if there is clear evidence of admissibility to a safe third country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was satisfied, following receipt of a letter from the Prime Minister of Dominica, that not only would Dr. al-Masari be admitted there but he would be granted refugee status should he wish to apply.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary believes that Dominica is a safe third country for the purposes of the refugee convention. Had he thought otherwise, the decision to remove Dr. al-Masari there would not have been taken. Dominica has an excellent human rights record, with freedom of speech and worship enshrined in the constitution.

Dr. al-Masari's wish for protection under the convention does not entitle him to choose Britain. It is relevant in this context that he also had no ties with this country before entering illegally, and we have all seen how he has taken advantage of our communications network in order to campaign against the Saudi Government—a campaign which the hon. Member for Hillhead, by his own mouth this evening, supports.

We have made no secret of the fact that the action taken in Dr. al-Masari's case took account of the United Kingdom's strategic and economic interest in the stability of Saudi Arabia. On being satisfied that Dr. al-Masari was not at risk of persecution in Dominica, or of removal from there to a country in which he might fear persecution, it was entirely consistent with the 1951 refugee convention to give wide consideration to the United Kingdom's overall interests.

We believe that a regular dialogue on human rights is the most appropriate and effective way to address this issue. As for human rights, we and our European partners regularly discuss human rights with the Saudis. In September, for instance, the European Union made a demarche to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Riyadh expressing concern at the increasing number of executions taking place in Saudi Arabia. In early December, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the European Union pointed out, in a reference to Saudi Arabia, the existence of serious obstacles to the enjoyment of human rights and freedom of religion and expression—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.