Iran (Hansard, 15 September 2004)

§ Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind your Lordships that I am the chairman of the British Committee for Iran Freedom.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are very concerned at the resumption of uranium enrichment activities by Iran, which are a contravention of our understanding of the undertaking given in October 2003 to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities.

§ Lord Corbett of Castle Vale
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Will she acknowledge that attempts at a constructive dialogue by my right honourable friend and others with the mullahs has led only to lies, deception and broken promises about the existence of the nuclear research and its real purpose? The regime's ability to enrich uranium means that Iran has the ability to make nuclear weapons. Will the Government support moves to refer Iran's non-compliance with its nuclear obligations to the UN Security Council, so that it can consider imposing sanctions on a regime which wants to add nuclear weapons to its menacing brand of religious fundamentalism?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I cannot agree that the policy of constructive dialogue has resulted only in what my noble friend describes as lies. It has exposed what is happening in Iran in terms of enrichment and processing activities. We all want to see an end to those activities. As my noble friend will know, this is a matter which is, as we speak, under active discussion in Vienna by the IAEA. I suggest to my noble friend that it is right for us to go through these discussions in Vienna and see what comes out of them before we take a decision about the appropriate moment, should such a moment arise, to refer the matter to the United Nations.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, while it appears, regrettably, that the agreement with the European Union three last year has now been repudiated by the Iranian Government, does the Minister nevertheless agree that with Dr El Baradei of the IAEA that it would be a mistake to rush into a deadline now on halting enriched uranium procedures? Does she also agree that we should 1178 be cautious about pushing ahead with sanctions for the very reasons that my noble friend Lord Lawson gave a few minutes ago in a different context?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, we need to be clear that the Iranians have not repudiated the agreement. We are very concerned that they are not living up to the agreement, but I would not wish in any way to encourage a repudiation of an agreement by letting that point go. However, I agree strongly with the noble Lord that we cannot be in the business of setting artificial deadlines. At the same time, although Dr El Baradei has said that, he has also said: It is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within the next few months". So while agreeing that it is right not to have a deadline which might be set for other, artificial reasons, we must also be very clear that this cannot be an open-ended process.

§ Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I agree with what the Minister has said so far, but does she agree with what Dr Hans Blix, the erstwhile UN inspector in Iraq, said in this palace last week? He said that the best way forward in dealing with the Iran issue, if I can call it that, was to get the international community, especially the United States, to press for a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East that would, of course, embrace Israel's nuclear weaponry.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, it is indeed the policy of the United Kingdom Government to press for a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East. However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the Iranians are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas the Israelis are not. The Iranians have also given undertakings that they will sign the additional protocol allowing for inspections, but as yet they have not done so.
The fact is that the IAEA, which is the guardian of the NPT, under the chairmanship of Dr El Baradei, has raised questions that the Iranians have not yet answered satisfactorily. We need to go through that process. There are, in addition, the additional undertakings that were made to the three European countries in October last year.

§ Lord Temple-Morris
My Lords—

§ Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords—

Noble Lords
Cross Bench.

§ Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

§ Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we are to give consideration—we may be forced to—to using more sticks to persuade the Iranians to comply with their obligations, we also need to focus on carrots? It really is important to try to get into a dialogue on the widest possible basis, including 1179 the United States, to address some of their security concerns. Can the noble Baroness say anything about the proposals which the press report the Iranian Government to have made about those wider issues? Does she agree that it is a little odd that the United States seem to talk to the North Koreans, but when they are asked to talk to the Iranians, they describe it as rewarding bad behaviour?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, it certainly is no secret that United States policy as regards engagement with Iran is different from United Kingdom policy. We have a relationship with Iran; we have a diplomatic relationship. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has visited Iran five times in the past three years, and I regularly receive Iranian visitors. There are undoubtedly security concerns regarding Iran which have to be addressed, and I agree with the noble Lord's point about carrots as well as sticks. The fact is, opportunities are open to Iran, such as a trade and co-operation agreement, if it is able to satisfy us all—not only those in the IAEA, but those in the European Union—about the NPT and that it is fulfilling the undertakings that were made to ourselves, the French and the Germans only in October last year.

§ Lord Temple-Morris
My Lords, does the Minister agree that these are very important matters, potentially and actually? There are two important ingredients: one of them is speed, and the other is unity. As to speed, will the Government do their utmost to ensure that, if Iran does not comply, the November deadline for reference to the United Nations is adhered to? As to unity, does the Minister agree that it is vital that Iran clearly realises, and that it is made very clear to it, that it cannot divide the European three, one from the other? In this instance, it is most important that those three are not divided from the United States.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Yes, my Lords, I agree with much of that, and I thank my noble friend for the work that he undertakes in trying to create better understanding between us and the Iranian people. However, I shall add a cautionary word to what my noble friend said.
In talking about November as a deadline, we should not create the kind of artificial deadlines that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned. There is a great deal of pressure in the international community to move the issue out of the IAEA and into the Security Council. There are those who wish to take longer in discussions in order to ensure that we have exhausted all possibilities before taking what would be a very important step in terms of profile and international relations. It is not always a question of going forward in a progressive way, if, at any point, the Iranians then decide to repudiate, for example, the NPT. Then we would be in a very difficult position. International negotiation is a delicate business, as your Lordships will know. Even as we speak, discussions are under way in Vienna, and I am sure that we all wish them success.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement in today's International Herald Tribune that, the United States, Israel and Iran all have an interest"— in terms of domestic politics— in pushing the situation toward a showdown"? Would the Minister also accept that a deadline of 31 October might have a complex relationship with the US presidential election? Given that the British Government want to encourage domestic politics to develop in a more progressive direction in Iran, how do we manage this immensely difficult issue in which our major allies are pushing us to take a harder line than we wish?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, we manage that by doing what we believe to be right. It is always interesting when the noble Lord has been going through his newspapers in the way that he does, but the judgment that he quoted is superficial. I understand where it comes from, because it can always be argued that it is better to be in contention in order to justify one's own position and that there is no better time than when the interesting prospect of elections lies ahead. However, those who are serious judges of what is happening would come to the conclusion that it is in nobody's interests to have a showdown over this issue, which is immensely serious.
Iran is in focus at the moment, but we know of a number of other countries that are not going through an IAEA process because they have not signed up for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We do not wish to demonstrate to those other countries that signing up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has some serious downsides, if we can avoid doing that. So a great deal of delicacy is needed in approaching what is going on. We are going to have a serious problem if we do not resolve these issues in the way to which we have set our hand. I commend to your Lordships the entirely sensible way in which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has decided to approach the issue.