Iran

Debate between Clive Betts and Catherine West

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) for securing this timely and important debate. Many of us share his concern about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I and others have visited Mr Beheshti, as I am sure he has, outside the FCDO on King Charles Street. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and I have been to see Mr Beheshti, and we had lengthy conversations with him. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), has lent her considerable influence and weight to that debate as well.

We look in awe at the bravery of the protesters in Iran led by women and girls following the shocking death of Mahsa Amini and those women who continue to fight for “women, life, freedom” and the right to live their lives as they choose. We look in horror at the brutal repression carried out by the regime against those courageous women, men and children; at the breaches of freedom of religion or belief, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) put on the record; at the suffering of the Baha’i community in particular, and at the crackdown on journalists and freedom of speech online.

In response to the protests, state repression has seen Iranian security forces unlawfully firing live ammunition and metal pellets at protesters, killing hundreds of men, women and children and injuring thousands. Thousands more have been arbitrarily detained and unfairly prosecuted solely for peacefully exercising their human rights. Women, LGBT+ people and ethnic and religious minorities have continued to be targeted by the regime, suffering discrimination and violence, enforced disappearances, torture and other ill treatment, including through the deliberate denial of medical care, which has been reported as widespread and systemic.

While street protests in Iran have lessened in recent months, the regime’s repression continues and state-sponsored brutality escalated again recently with the execution of three more protesters: Majid Kazemi, Saleh Mirhashemi and Saeed Yaghoubi. Sentenced to death in grossly unfair trials without evidence and amid serious allegations of torture, their executions were designed to strike fear into the hearts of ordinary Iranian people and to suppress dissent. As Members have mentioned, Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that it

“underlines our concerns that the Iranian authorities continue to have scant regard for international law”,

with the death penalty

“applied following judicial proceedings that failed to meet acceptable international standards of fair trial or due process.”

Indeed, the exact number of executions is unknown due to the lack of Government transparency and, sadly, that figure is likely to be much higher. Today, Amnesty International reports that at least 11 people sentenced to death are at grave risk of execution in connection with protests. We believe the international community has an important role to play and that the UK must stand unequivocally against the death penalty in all circumstances and wherever it is used in the world. I share concerns raised by human rights groups that the continued use of the death penalty in Iran demonstrates the limits of discrete diplomacy. What assessment has the Minister made of the spate of executions so far this year in Iran, and what concrete action are the UK Government taking with our international partners in response to the execution of three more protesters last month? With a further 11 people at grave risk of execution at the hands of the Iranian regime, what additional diplomatic pressure can be applied to ensure that the regime stops this horrific wave of execution?

As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw laid out in his opening remarks, Iran poses an increasing military threat at home and abroad. In Ukraine, Iranian-made Shahed drones have played a central role in Russia’s illegal war and its attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine. Last week, in response to Russian airstrikes attacking Kyiv, Ukraine introduced sanctions against the Iranian regime to stop Iranian goods transiting through Ukraine or using its airspace, as well as trade, financial and technology sanctions. Is there more that we can do here on sanctions? In the March refresh of the integrated review, the UK Government restated their aim to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but there are deep concerns that the failure to restore the joint comprehensive plan of action and the stalling of talks since September 2022 may mean that Iran soon makes irreversible nuclear progress, rendering previous commitments meaningless.

Looking at the middle east and Iran’s role in the region more widely, we continue to be concerned about the regime’s support for terror groups and militias, as seen in its threats against Israel and its continued military involvement in Syria and elsewhere. We have seen other developments in the region, such as the recent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Would the Minister give us his assessment of that development?

Here in the UK, since the start of 2022, Iran has been responsible for at least 15 potential threats against British or UK-based individuals perceived as enemies of the regime. In February this year, Iran International TV was forced to suspend its operations in London after state-backed threats were made against its journalists, in a deeply worrying attack on press freedom. Just last week in the IPU room here in Parliament, the well-known BBC Persian TV presenter Farnaz Ghazizadeh shared a platform with me and others, and she spoke movingly about her desire to see greater freedom of expression for Iranians and greater safety in the UK for her and her colleagues. Does the Minister believe enough is being done to protect Iranian diaspora members in the UK?

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the wider calls from Members across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and from the Iranian diaspora community to formally proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, either by using existing terrorism legislation or by creating a new process of proscription for hostile state actors. There must be a way of doing that.

As I draw my remarks to a close, I would like to focus on one final area, and it is something this House has been all too aware of in recent times: Iran’s engagement in state hostage-taking, which the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has described as a “systematic problem.” Today, British dual nationals Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof remain incarcerated in Iran. We look back to the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, her brave husband Richard, her wider family and the community. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) who skilfully brought that case to this House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) did the same with the case of Anoosheh Ashoori and Aras Amiri, who has spoken out this week about the ordeal she suffered in Evin prison. She wants to see other political prisoners—women like her, who are stuck in Evin—freed for good.

Last month, the Foreign Secretary told the House that the UK continues to

“make every effort to support British dual nationals incarcerated in Iran”—[Official Report, 14 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 692.]

and that this remains an “ongoing piece of work.” However, the Foreign Affairs Committee was critical of the FCDO and its approach to assisting British citizens incarcerated abroad under false pretences and has urged the Government to go further to strengthen abroad and in Whitehall our deterrence against arbitrary detention of British citizens. What assessment has the Minister made of the competence of the FCDO in that regard? Is it an effective response to widespread human rights abuses of imprisoned British nationals?

The courage of the Iranian protesters is extraordinary. What we say in this place matters, so we must continue to shine a light on the situation and share our collective revulsion at the regime’s human rights violations. That will spur us on to take brave actions, including giving serious consideration to proscribing the IRGC.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to allow at least two minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to wind up the debate.

British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands

Debate between Clive Betts and Catherine West

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this important debate and on the work of his all-party group, which has relentlessly promoted the issue in Parliament.

The Chagos islands attract cross-party consensus on the right thing to do. Today is the day to break through the institutional inertia, the sense of paralysis and the 17 years of expensive litigation that has amounted to millions of pounds of public funds wasted. This could all have been sorted if it had been looked at from the beginning as a fundamental human rights issue.

Many Members have made excellent contributions today. The hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) described the appalling irony that Filipinos who work on the base in Diego Garcia are permitted to live there, but indigenous islanders cannot—a very important point. Mr Bryant, the Member for Rhondda, observed that while the US position should definitely be taken into consideration, it should not be the defining principle for this Parliament. Mr Duddridge described—

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Order. It is not appropriate to address hon. Members by name; please refer to them by constituency.

[Catherine West]

Thank you for that timely reminder, Chair—Mr Betts. [Laughter.]

The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) described vividly his journey to the British Indian Ocean Territory islands. He also described some of the difficulties of any resettlement package, which are of course understandable after 50 years. However, there remains a question simply of justice. It is some 51 years since the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory and 49 years since the expulsions began—that must be one of the longest exiles in world history.

Nearly four years ago, on 20 December 2012, the then Foreign Secretary Lord Hague announced a review of policy, and in 2013 he commissioned the much mentioned KPMG study into the feasibility of a return for the islanders. That study was concluded in 2014 and published in February 2015. It found no insuperable obstacles to resettlement. In a further consultation with the Chagossians, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office found that 98% of the 825 who responded were in favour of resettlement.

With the extension of the 1966 UK-US agreement on the use of the British Indian Ocean Territory due by 30 December this year, now is the ideal time to allow Chagossians who want to do so to return to their homeland and rebuild their lives. In any case, all Chagossians want to be able to visit their islands at will. The all-party group believes that the extension should be conditional on both parties agreeing to support and facilitate resettlement, and that that should be reflected in a new side agreement.

It has been clear for some time from various discussions, including those between my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and President Obama last autumn, that although there are concerns that need to be addressed, the US has no strong objections to resettlement; otherwise, I am sure they would have come up at that meeting. We need to look carefully at the conservation issues, but we know that there are several miles around the islands in which fishing can be undertaken as a subsistence occupation.

The cost of resettlement could be reduced by simple infrastructure and the supply of goods and services from elsewhere in the region, such as Mauritius. We should look to the US, the European development fund and the DFID budget for that—after all, the Secretary of State for International Development said this morning that she was looking for some new projects to fund. I am sure that there are British companies that would be interested in infrastructure projects on the islands. Resettlement need not be much of a burden on the taxpayer, particularly compared with how much has so far been spent on expensive legal fees.

The continuing damage to the UK’s reputation for the promotion of human rights far outweighs the cost, liabilities and risks of trying out a resettlement. The UK’s reputation is tarnished by the ongoing violation of fundamental human rights. It is clear that this is not a one-party issue; it is cross-party, and we agree about it. As the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, it was wrong then and it is wrong now.

In June, the Supreme Court concluded that in the light of the KPMG study, maintaining the ban on the Chagossians’ return may no longer be lawful. The court noted that if the Government failed to restore the right of abode, it would be open to Chagossians to mount a new challenge by way of judicial review on grounds of irrationality, unreasonableness and disproportionality. The court castigated the FCO, noting that, in withholding important documents, its conduct had been “highly regrettable”. Surely, after all these years of expensive litigation, costing several million pounds, this should be the day on which we proclaim that we will do the right thing. If we do not rectify the situation, it will be for ever on our consciences. I note the presence of several former Ministers; I think that is because this issue must be resolved.

In 23 April 2009 the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), then a shadow Foreign Office Minister, said in this Chamber on behalf of the Conservatives something that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) quoted earlier. It is worth repeating:

“There is no doubt that there is a moral imperative…I suspect…the all-party view”

is

“that the rights of the Chagossian people should be recognised, and that there should at the very least be a timetable for the return of those people at least to the outer islands…The Foreign Office should recognise that the House of Commons feels very strongly on that.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 176WH.]

More than seven years later, can we now expect the Government to fulfil that commitment?

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

If the Minister could leave a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the motion to wind up the debate, that would be appreciated.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Clive Betts and Catherine West

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

I think that when authorities have been able to target resources at a particular area, go for the bad landlords and try to get them to sign up, the system has been relatively successful. I have had experience of one case, but there is a bigger case in Newham, where the local authority has been licensing all the private sector properties in the borough.

If the necessary resources are put in, a licensing scheme can be effective. The difficulty is that local authorities can charge only for the administration costs. They cannot charge for the costs involved in following up inadequate properties, and trying to enforce proper conditions in those properties. The problem that currently affects private sector housing relates not to the powers that local authorities may or may not have, but to the fact that, in many instances, they do not have the resources that would enable them to use their powers effectively. That is a real challenge that needs to be addressed, and on which we ought to reflect further. I do not know whether the Government have any more ideas, but rent recovery and civil penalties may help a little.

Let me return to another issue that was raised by the Select Committee, and to which the Minister referred. Why cannot local authorities keep the fines that are imposed on bad landlords for failing in their duties? It seems a little odd that in the less serious cases authorities can keep the proceeds of civil penalties, but in the most serious cases, which often cost the most in terms of local authority officers’ time—and, in my experience, authorities often do not recover the costs when they go to court—the fines go back to the central Exchequer. What is the Government’s problem with allowing authorities that are involved in the most serious cases, with the greatest costs, to keep the fines that are levied?

[Catherine West]

In some instances, particularly in London boroughs, it is so lucrative to be a landlord that the civil penalties are not enough of a disincentive. People can be in court at one moment and building another shoddy flat at the next. They will simply pay the fine, because ultimately it will represent only a tiny proportion of their profit.

[Mr Betts]

That is true. I am pleased that the Government seem to want to increase the fine levels. I hope that eventually the banning orders will kick in, and a number of civil penalties will be imposed over a period. That is the intention of one of the amendments, and it, too, is welcome. I think that banning orders will have an impact if they are properly effective, along with other measures in the Bill that will help to deal with rogue landlords.

Before I say a few words about the ombudsman, I want to say something about new clause 5, which we heard about from the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson). I think that it is an excellent measure, and the Government ought to think seriously about it. It is very simple, and would be very light on public sector resources. Indeed, it would probably save public money, because it would not be necessary to chase around finding out who owned properties when there was a problem with them. The information would be readily available, at little cost to the public purse. Local authorities would be able to do their jobs more effectively, as they would spend less time trying to find out who was the owner or the letting agent. Tenants often do not have that information, but by the time a problem occurs, authorities want to have it to hand so that they can take immediate action against those who are responsible.

The hon. Lady also put her finger on a very important point. In the case of the licensing scheme in Sheffield, I suddenly realised why landlords were so opposed to it. There was, of course, the possibility that local authorities would carry out more inspections of their properties, find faults and take action, but what most disturbed them, in my view, was that HMRC would know that a property was tenanted and rent was being paid to someone, and one or two further inquiries might follow. I think that is absolutely right: that should be done—the taxpayer ought to be paid their tax on rent that is collected. Very often in these properties there are not proper tenancy agreements, the rent is simply paid cash in hand and the taxpayer receives none of it. Having that information in the public domain that can be used for any proper purpose—I hope that would include being able to pass it on to the tax authorities—has another benefit to the public purse. That is a very sensible and simple measure, and I hope the Government will be prepared to support it.

Finally, I hope the Government will give further thought to the housing ombudsman covering the private rented sector. I know there may be the view that this is a private sector and therefore a public sector ombudsman should not be looking at these matters, but let us draw a comparison. The coalition Government extended the remit of the local authority ombudsman to cover social care homes even when the person in those homes was paying for themselves, so there was no direct public sector involvement. That remit was extended to social care homes because it was thought that it was somehow wrong that some people could not take an element of social care provision to the ombudsman for a decision while other people in the same care home could.

For example, if a local authority discharges its homelessness duty by allocating or placing someone in a private sector property and it all goes wrong, the local authority element of that, where it makes the placement, would presumably be under the jurisdiction of the local authority ombudsman. However, if it is the private landlord who does not deal with that tenancy properly, there would be no remit for the tenant to go to any ombudsman at all. Once the local authority discharges its duty and makes provision to have someone housed in the private sector, at some point in the transfer from someone being homeless to them receiving a private tenancy, there would be a switch from an individual having recourse to go to an ombudsman and their not having recourse to do so. There could be great dispute about whether the action of allocating someone a house in the private sector as part of a local authority’s homelessness responsibility was covered by an ombudsman or not. I therefore hope that the Government will reflect on the fact that this may be one of the gaps in the provision of the ombudsman’s service. I know that they are looking overall at reconfiguration of the service, and they might give some thought to this extension as a sensible way of covering one of the gaps.