| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I hope that the Foreign Secretary managed to get a word in edgeways, given the tirade to which, according to various reports of the meeting, he was subjected. Did he raise the possibility, which has been mooted, of a British-Iranian human rights dialogue? Such a dialogue would encompass all the concerns that we have, from time to time, expressed, including, in particular, the crackdown on the free media and the detention and torture of dissidents, such as Manouchehr Mohammadi, the student leader, who was taken into custody and severely mistreated, following the disturbances at the university in 1999.
Did the Foreign Secretary also take up with his counterparts the essential condition that the Iranians should admit the instruments of the Commission on Human Rights, so that they could investigate violations of human rights and report back to the international community? There is a particular need for that to be done at the moment, considering that the human rights commission has discontinued the work of the special rapporteur on Iran.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be aware that we raise human rights issues in all our engagements with Iran. There are proposals for an EU-Iran human rights dialogue, and it is likely that that will go ahead. There had been concerns that pre-conditions would be asked for, but no pre-conditions would be made on either side. For example, it would not be ruled out that a resolution might be put before the UN General Assembly.
The Commission on Human Rights is separate from the UN General Assembly. The noble Lord will know that the resolution on Iran was narrowly lost, which is why the rapporteur on Iran was lost. We will have to return to that matter at the next meeting of the commission. Even if a resolution is proposed and passed at the General Assembly, that is not linked with having a rapporteur going into the country.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we welcome the appointment of the new British ambassador to Iran. Iran could be an important ally in the coalition against Saddam's terror and his programme for weapons of mass destruction. At this sensitive time, could the Minister tell the House when the new ambassador will take up his position?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, he accompanied my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on his recent visit. He will take up his appointment early next year.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the British Committee on Iran Freedom. Can the Minister say more about the
attitude of the United Kingdom Government to the tabling of a resolution at the United Nations condemning the mullahs' regime in Tehran for the brutal acts and the human rights abuses committed against the population? Five young men were hanged in public from the end of cranes the day before a delegation from the European Union arrived in Tehran.Will the Minister assure the House that, in yesterday's discussions, there was no question of the United Kingdom's biting its lip over those human rights abuses, in exchange for any form of support from that regime for possible action in Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I made it clear that, in our discussions with the Iranians, we raised the issue of human rights. We recognise that there has been a recent deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. As we know, that is partly the result of the political stand-off involving the reformers and their conservative opponents.
We will continue our policy of constructive dialogue with Iran. There have been areas in which Iran has been helpful, but that does not mean that we do not put across tough messages—not just about human rights, but about the Middle East peace process—when we need to do it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, has the Minister seen the information that was published by the Iranian authorities showing that 292 people have already been executed this year in Iran? That is twice as many as the figure for the same period last year. The Minister is right to recognise that there has been a deterioration in the human rights record of that regime. We must keep such things at the heart of our dealings with Iraq.
Will the Minister also tell us why we have come to a different conclusion about the way in which we should deal with the regime from that reached by the American State Department?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have a different analysis of the way to encourage change for the better in Iran. Our view on that differs from that of the Americans. We are not reluctant to say that. As noble Lords know, we share many of the United States' concerns about Iran's support for terrorist groups and the reports of its development of weapons of mass destruction.
We will continue to raise those issues. I do not know how I can say that in any other way to the House. Human rights abuses and the support that the Iranian regime gives to certain organisations are the substance of robust discussions between this country and Iran.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister must be aware of conflicting reports about Iran's
policy towards Afghanistan, both towards Al'Qaeda fugitives and towards the western areas in Afghanistan around Herat. Can the Government enlighten us as to what Iranian policy is?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is not for me to enlighten the House as to what Iranian policy is. I am aware that there have been conflicting reports, but we have had good co-operation with Iran on several regional issues, including the transitional government in Afghanistan. That is one of the areas where we have been working with the Iranians over a period of several months.
Enterprise Bill
3.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 12, Schedule 2, Clause 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 and 15, Schedule 4, Clauses 16 to 20, Schedule 5, Clauses 21 to 67, Schedule 6, Clauses 68 to 82, Schedule 7, Clause 83, Schedule 8, Clauses 84 to 87, Schedule 10, Clauses 88 to 163, Schedule 9, Clauses 164 to 180, Schedule 11, Clauses 181 and 182, Schedule 12, Clauses 183 to 205, Schedule 13, Clauses 206 to 233, Schedule 14, Clauses 234 to 236, Schedule 15, Clauses 237 to 243, Schedules 16 and 17, Clauses 244 and 245, Schedule 18, Clause 246 to 251, Schedule 19, Clause 252, Schedules 20 and 21, Clauses 253 to 259, Schedule 22,
Clauses 260 to 264, Schedule 23, Clauses 265 to 271, Schedule 24, Clauses 272 and 273, Schedules 25 and 26, Clauses 274 to 276.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The effect of the Motion is that, when we have dealt tonight with Amendment No. 78, which is the last amendment to Part 7, we will stop. The Bill will be reprinted tomorrow. The new government amendments to Parts 3, 5 and 8 will be retabled, and amendments in response to them will, no doubt, be tabled. Next Thursday, 17th October, we will go back into Committee on Parts 3, 5 and 8. The Bill will be reprinted again the following day, and further amendments may be tabled to Parts 3, 5 and 8.
The usual channels have agreed that Report stage for Parts 3, 5 and 8 will take place on Thursday 24th October. If there are procedural questions about these arrangements I suggest that they should be directed to the Clerks. I beg to move.
Moved, That, when consideration on Report of Parts 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Bill has been completed, the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Parts 3, 5 and 8.—(Lord Filkin.)
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I must ask the Minister whether that is correct. Should not questions of procedure be addressed to the Front Benches, as opposed to the Clerks?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is, as so often, technically correct. I sought to ensure that we had the quickest way of getting an accurate and detailed answer.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving the Motion. It shows that the Government listened to the concerns that were expressed in all parts of the House on Monday. I am glad that the Government have decided to do the right thing.
I shall not go into detailed questions—I am invited to direct them elsewhere—but I would like clarification from the Minister on one matter. He referred to the new government amendments being retabled. Before my arrival in the Chamber about 10 minutes ago, I went via the Printed Paper Office and
discovered that it has no knowledge of the tabling in the first instance of the new government clauses. Will the Minister assist us as to when they will appear?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |