14 Mar 2006 : Column 1277
House of Commons
Tuesday 14 March 2006
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
The unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker having been announced, The Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.PRIVATE BUSINESS
Hbos Group Reorganisation Bill
Considered; to be read the Third time.Oral Answers to Questions
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
The Secretary of State was asked—
Iran
1. Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran. [57926]
2. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): If he will make a statement on Iran's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency. [57927]
5. Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds) (Con): If he will make a statement on Iran's relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency. [57931]
7. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West) (Con): If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran. [57933]
10. Mr. Shailesh Vara (North-West Cambridgeshire) (Con): If he will make a statement on the political situation in Iran. [57936]
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Iran's nuclear activities are of the greatest concern. On 4 February this year, the International Atomic Energy Agency board adopted by a large majority a resolution calling on Iran to restore full suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, but giving it until the March board before the Security Council became involved.
Despite intensive diplomatic efforts by Russia, China and the United Kingdom, France and Germany, the EU3, Iran did not take that opportunity. Instead, Iran has moved in the wrong direction, suspending co-operation with the IAEA under the additional protocol, which it committed itself in October 2003 to sign and ratify. This backward move by the Iranian regime is a
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1278
symptom of a wider deterioration in the political situation in Iran, which includes further restrictions on press freedom and human rights, support for terrorism and unacceptable hostility towards Israel.
The IAEA director general's latest report said that it was a matter of concern that the nature of Iran's nuclear programmes had not been clarified after three years of intensive agency verification. The issue now moves to the Security Council. Our aim will be to use the council's political and legal powers to ensure that Iran takes the measures that the IAEA board of governors has deemed necessary. Iran must, among other steps, fully suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including so-called research and development. We expect council action to be in support of the IAEA's work, in stages, and also to be reversible according to Iranian reactions.
Allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would be deeply damaging for stability in the region as a whole and for the non-proliferation system. We will intensify our efforts with our partners to ensure that that does not happen.
Michael Gove: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He will recall that he visited Tehran five times over the past five years as part of his policy of constructive interaction. Following those visits, the Iranian regime has increased its support for Hezbollah, stepped up its drive for a nuclear bomb, turned its country into the biggest prison for journalists in the middle east, backed forces in Iraq targeting British troops and pledged to wipe Israel off the map. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what precisely was constructive about that interaction?
Mr. Straw: That was an elegantly phrased question, but the insinuation that the one had followed the other is not entirely correct. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my five visits to Iran were all during the presidency of President Khatami, who was elected in what we think were free and democratic elections in 1987 and 2002, and when Iran was moving away from the confrontational approach that had been followed before. I am quite unapologetic about those visits and the efforts that we were making. I am also unapologetic about the work that I have undertaken with France and Germany to try to resolve this issue by peaceful and diplomatic means. Although it has been frustrating, I am clear that it has been far better than the alternative and that without this engagement between these three major European countries, we would never have got the consensus against Iran and for the non-proliferation regime that we achieved, for example, among the IAEA board of governors on 4 February.
Mr. Mackay: Following Iran's formal rejection of Russia's proposals for a joint venture operation and following the Foreign Secretary's welcome speech yesterday, can we conclude that he is nearer to Vice-President Cheney than he was before?
Mr. Straw: I have always enjoyed good relations with Vice-President Cheney, but I speak for the British Government, not the American Government.
Mr. Ruffley:
The Foreign Secretary has told us that the UN Security Council will be able to act to reinforce the authority of the IAEA. While he has ruled out
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1279
military sanctions, can he reassure us today that he will back economic sanctions, should Iran continue to flout its clear international obligations?
Mr. Straw: I have indeed ruled out military action. I have not ruled out the use of article 41 measures, which include sanctions and which will be before the Security Council if they reach a resolution, and Iran understands that. I shall not speculate about which measures might be appropriate or for which we could achieve consensus, but the actions of the Iranian Government are already imposing sanctions on the people of Iran. There has been a flight of capital out of the country, a fall in the Tehran stock exchange, when other stock exchanges have been buoyant, and, above all, a flight of the most important resource of any country—the brightest and best young people in Iran, and that is likely to continue as long as the regime is in power.
Mr. Amess: Now that the policy of appeasement has been seen to have been so disastrous, resulting in the dreadful Iranian President, does the Foreign Secretary accept that a firm signal of disapproval should be sent to Tehran? Will he now consider targeted sanctions, such as those suggested, of a travel ban and freezing the assets of senior officials?
Mr. Straw: The most important thing that we have to do is to maintain a strong and effective international consensus in respect of Iran. Nothing would please the Iranians more than to see the Security Council and the world split between Europe and the United States on the one hand with Russia, China and the non-aligned movement on the other. At each stage, the Iranians have calculated that they would be able to secure that split, while actually at each stage the consensus against them has strengthened, which is why, despite all the rhetoric, we know that they are very worried about the situation.
On appropriate measures under article 41, the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not anticipating which measures we might be able to take. That will depend above all on gaining a majority and a consensus among the permanent five of the Security Council, but Tehran needs to take notice of the fact that having had the tacit acquiescence of the Russian Federation at the beginning of the process, Iran has now secured its active hostility.
Mr. Vara: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has held with other Gulf states, with a view to putting pressure on Iran to sever its links with terrorist groups such as Hezbollah?
Mr. Straw: I have held many discussions with the other Gulf states. They are concerned about Iran's approach in respect of their own Shi'a populations and in respect of support for terrorism. Above all, they share the suspicions of the board of governors of the IAEA that Iran may indeed be using its nuclear facilities to develop a nuclear weapons capability and they are deeply concerned about that.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend see any role whatever for a military solution to the problem and, if so, at what point?
Mr. Straw:
No, and I have made that clear.
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1280
Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) (Lab/Co-op): Does my right hon. Friend agree that this crisis has to be handled carefully and long, and that talk of military action or of imminent sanctions is unwise until we have maintained unity in the Security Council?
Mr. Straw: That is very wise advice; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the situation is frustrating, but those who want precipitate action need to think about the alternatives, which I believe would be far, far worse.
David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion) (Lab/Co-op): Can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment and representations his Department has made in respect of members of minority religious groups in Iran since its current Government came to power and in particular since the death, on 15 December 2005, of a Baha'i, Mr. Mahrami in Yazd prison?
Mr. Straw: The human rights situation has got worse since President Ahmadinejad came to power. The position of the Baha'is has always been precarious and has got worse. We continue to make strong representations to the Iranians about that, both directly and through the European Union.
Mr. Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the British Government have made representations to the Iranian Government about alleged members of al-Qaeda who are being held in Iran?
Mr. Straw: We have, and the Iranians are as ambiguous about al-Qaeda as they are about so much else. They recognise that al-Qaeda is an historic enemy of the Iranian regime, yet they have so far failed fully to co-operate with other members of the international community to ensure that members of al-Qaeda are brought to justice.
Mr. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD): Iran's non-compliance with its international obligations is extremely serious and completely unacceptable. Amidst the tough negotiations, we certainly welcome the Foreign Secretary's restatement of his view that military action against Iran is inconceivable. Can he tell us whether the Prime Minister and the United States Secretary of State would use the same language, and how does the Foreign Secretary believe that the recent nuclear agreement between the United States and India will affect the Iranian position?
Mr. Straw: First, may I offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on his elevation as a Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman? [Hon. Members: "Mini Ming!"] I think that he is quite a big lad myself, and well able to look after himself.
I have set out the British Government's position on military action. I cannot speak—I do not presume to do so—for any foreign Government, but I can say, because it is a matter of record, that although no Commander in Chief of the United States, the President, ever rules out options, in practice, military action is not on the American Government's agenda any more than it is on anyone else's.
14 Mar 2006 : Column 1281
Dr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that every Government in the world should regret the fact that Iran has allowed this issue to move from the IAEA to the Security Council? Will he take this opportunity to reaffirm that it is Government policy that any action against Iran will be authorised by the UN Security Council?
Mr. Straw: Any action that was taken by the international community would have to be authorised by the Security Council, and I speak for the United Kingdom. The IAEA operates under the Security Council's general supervision, and it is under its statutes that we have reported Iran to the Security Council.
I am afraid that I failed to answer the last of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) in relation to India. India was not a member of non-proliferation treaty regime. It acquired nuclear weapons. We in the United Kingdom were co-sponsors of a resolution calling on India and Pakistan to desist. It is a reality that the United States and we have sought to ensure that there are agreements with India by which it comes at least partially—I hope, in time, fully—into the non-proliferation regime; but, interestingly, Iran has never raised the issue of India, because of course Iran continues to deny that it has any nuclear weapons ambitions whatsoever.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks) (Con): Given that all diplomatic efforts to date to dissuade the Iranian leadership from pursuing its nuclear ambitions have failed, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the Security Council's response must be particularly robust and determined to have any chance of success? Does he agree that an essential part of that must be a comprehensive embargo on all deliveries of weapons and military equipment to Iran, including all nuclear and missile technology?
Mr. Straw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the more robust and determined the response, the quicker that this issue can be resolved satisfactorily for everyone and, above all, for the Iranian people. It will be hard going in the Security Council. However, I am heartened by the fact that it was hard going to get a majority in the board of governors to report Iran to the Security Council, but after a lot of negotiation, we got China, Russia, India, Yemen, Sri Lanka, Egypt and Brazil all in favour, so I remain optimistic.
On precise measures, we anticipate an incremental approach. Initially, there will be a presidential statement by the Security Council. We hope that that works. If it does not, we will look for a Security Council resolution, which may not contain measures; but if that does not work, we are considering the possibility of there being measures. The right hon. Gentleman makes a proposal for inclusion in that, which, of course, we will consider carefully.
Mr. Hague: The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that the use of force against Iran was inconceivable—he has said pretty much the same again today—but on 7 February the Prime Minister said:
Has the Prime Minister now changed his view? If so, what has changed in the interim to change his view? In the interests of bringing maximum pressure to bear and of acting in concert with our allies, is it not a mistake entirely to rule out, however far in the future, the use of force?
Mr. Straw: There is no distinction in the British Government's approach. No one is talking about military action. Military action will not resolve the issue. There is no casus belli that I can see. If Iran were to attack one of its neighbours, plainly the situation would change and the issue of a Security Council resolution would not arise, but in the real world in which we are living, where we are trying to resolve this issue, I do not see that there is a place for military action. I have heard no one who believes that there is a place for military action. Given that that is the case and, frankly, given the understandable anxieties of the House, as well as the country, about military action against the background of Iraq, it is very important that we are straight with the British public about what is likely to be used and what is not likely to be used.
Mr. John McFall (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): How much consideration has been given to Mohamed el-Baradei's suggestion that member states establish fuel banks with countries with nuclear reactors, thereby ridding non-weapon states of the need to acquire the fuel-processing technology that can be used to produce weapons-grade material? Under such a scheme, if countries comply with their non-proliferation obligations they will receive that material.
Mr. Straw: A great deal of consideration has been given to that proposal, which fits in with proposals by the American Government. I spelt out to the Iranians the fact that I understand their anxiety about being wholly reliant on one supplier—in this case, Russia—for fuel, which is why we internationally have told Iran that we would be willing for an international guarantee to be given whereby the Russian supply or any alternative supply would be guaranteed. I very much hope that it will accept that offer.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |