Palestine and Israel

James Clappison Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), but I am afraid to say that, having listened carefully to his speech and the speech of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), I am not as convinced as I would like to be that this motion would contribute towards a peaceful solution of the conflict, or that the recognition of Palestine by the House in a Back-Bench motion would somehow unlock a process whereby the two sides negotiated freely together to arrive at a peaceful solution.

The hon. Gentleman said that he would destroy the argument of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that taking this step would pre-empt and pre-determine the result of the negotiations. I am afraid to say that having listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech—he did not take all interventions on this point—that argument was still well in existence at the end of his contribution and had not been destroyed at all, and it remains there for us to face. I say that as a committed supporter of a two-state solution, which will involve difficult, if not painful, compromises on both sides. It is also something that will take a long time—

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that the political system of the world’s superpower and our great ally the United States is very susceptible to well-funded powerful lobbying groups and the power of the Jewish lobby in America, it falls to this country and to this House to be the good but critical friend that Israel needs, and this motion tonight just might lift that logjam on this very troubled area?

[Mr Clappison]

There are powerful lobbies on all sides, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with me in paying tribute to the work that Secretary of State Kerry did in trying to bring both sides to the negotiating table; he really does deserve our staunch support. But I am sure that my hon. Friend would also agree that a peaceful solution will be achieved only by negotiations by the parties themselves over all the outstanding issues, without the issues being determined in advance. The question for the outside world is whether what it does makes a just two-state solution more or less likely. I believe that international recognition of a Palestinian state in the terms of the motion would make a two-state solution less likely rather than more likely. I heard what the right hon. Member for Blackburn said about this. I am afraid that I do not see Israel, having faced the challenges that it has faced over years, caving in to this Back-Bench motion tonight. It might be a gesture on the part of the House, but it would take the process no further. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Easington can chose to look at this in terms of a veto, but it will require both sides, including the state of Israel, a democracy, which is susceptible to public opinion, to agree to a solution. That is the only way in which a just solution can be achieved.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can answer the point, which I think was going to be made to him, as to whether he will accept that although Israel has not always done everything that it possibly could to bring about a solution, there have been repeated occasions in history, in the 1930s and the 1940s, and more recently, when it has been Israel that has agreed to a solution of all the outstanding issues, and it has not found the hand coming from the other side. That is historical fact.

[Grahame M. Morris]

What is the hon. Gentleman’s solution, given that the former Foreign Secretary has said that the two-state solution is no longer tenable? Given the facts on the ground, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and numerous other Members have indicated, with the settlement expansion plan—600,000 settlers—if we are not going to push ahead with the two-state solution because of the practicalities, what is the hon. Gentleman’s alternative? Is it a one-state solution?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

The state of Israel has been prepared to agree to a two-state solution in the past, and I hope that it will do so in future, but that will require both sides to negotiate. I do not accept the pessimism inherent in the hon. Gentleman’s approach, because it is now clear that the motion is very pessimistic. I would like to see a hopeful motion that looked forward to a peaceful solution that gave Palestine its state, based on a fair division of territory, and all the accoutrements of statehood while at the same time allowing the state of Israel to enjoy sovereignty and security.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Clappison]

I am afraid that I cannot, because I would run out of time.

I believe that the Palestinian Authority have acted in good faith and are a worthy partner in negotiations. They have expressed their commitment to a two-state solution. Although he does not actually have a state, I believe that President Abbas has displayed statesmanlike qualities, not least during the recent Gazan conflict, but I believe that he and his Authority are making a mistake in going down the unilateral road.

There is a problem, which the hon. Member for Easington did not recognise, in the form of Hamas. Hamas is a different matter. Although the Palestinian Authority has acted in good faith, and although President Abbas has been statesmanlike in many ways, I am afraid that the Palestinian Authority took a backward step when they entered into a unity deal with Hamas in April this year. It would have been fine if Hamas had shown any inkling that it was moving towards a peaceful solution, but it has not. It has had many opportunities to commit to the requirements of the international community and say that it will go down the road of peace, but from its inception, and according to the tenets of its founding charter, it has set its face against any sort of peaceful co-existence with the state of Israel and turned its hand to a campaign of unremitting terror and violence. No Government would stand by and allow such a campaign to be directed against its population without taking proportionate measures in self-defence.

We must not overlook the fact—it is often overlooked—that Hamas has caused Gaza, a rather sad place to say the least, to be locked into a deeply depressing cycle of violence, intending to inflict casualties on Israel and reckless as to the consequences for the civilian population in Gaza. It is against that background that we must approach these issues.

I very much hope that in future Hamas will show some willingness to become part of a peaceful solution and to engage in normal democratic politics and peaceful and legal means, but it has not done that so far. The pressure should be on Hamas to refrain from its campaign of violence and enter into negotiations genuinely, together with the Palestinian Authority, with the state of Israel.

This is a terrible conflict. We must all look forward to the day when both sides get down to the business of making the compromises that will be needed to bring it to an end. Israel certainly has to make compromises as well, but in the meantime we should all take steps that will make those compromises more, rather than less, likely. My fear is that the motion—a unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state—by encouraging one party to walk away from negotiations, would put off that day. We should be doing everything we can to induce both sides to negotiate, because only that way, as our Government have recognised, will we see a peaceful solution to this problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Clappison Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the appalling electoral violence in Bangladesh, which we completely condemn. We continue to support the Government structures by updating electoral registers, training polling officials and putting in place new systems for publishing details, particularly as people stand for office. Those improvements will, we hope, create and strengthen the foundations for better future elections.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

What assessment do Ministers make of reports that Iran is stepping up its already considerable military assistance to the Syrian regime?

[Hugh Robertson]

The simple answer is that those reports are almost certainly credible. One of the most damaging aspects of the conflict in Syria is the help given by both Iran and Hezbollah to the regime forces. That will need to stop before there can be any peace in that country.

Iran (Joint Plan of Action)

James Clappison Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr Offord]

My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott), has mentioned something that I hope to come on to in my speech. It remains a great concern that, while Iran is engaging in the process of reconciliation through the talks and the agreement, it is also engaging in activities not only in places such as Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, but in places such as Lebanon, combining forces with Hezbollah and others.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he share my concern at the reports coming out of the area that only in recent days Iran has been stepping up its military and material support, and the provision of personnel, for the Bashar al-Assad regime? Would it not be strange for us to be granting new favours to the Iranian regime and helping it economically when it is supplying that terrible regime, which is slaughtering its own citizens?

[Dr Offord]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is another issue I intend to raise. The fact that we are seeking to allow a country greater economic freedoms that in turn allows it to support terror in others parts of the region is of great concern. That seems to act counter to the things that are being said by President Rouhani and others in that country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

Yes, I dispute them. I am not a chemical engineer or a nuclear engineer, but on the basis of my research and the evidence I have read, I dispute those estimates and I maintain that Iran is on the verge of making a breakthrough. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), said in the House on Monday, with as many as 10,000 centrifuges in operation already, Iran retains the capability to break out and produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear weapon in as little as two months. The deal does not roll back the vast majority of the advances that Iran has made in the past five years, which have drastically shortened what nuclear experts call its “dash time” to a bomb—the minimum time that it would take to build a weapon if Iran’s Supreme Leader or military decided to pursue that path.

Most concerning of all, the world’s leading powers have tacitly recognised Iran’s right to enrichment, which has been the Islamic Republic’s key demand for many years. The interim agreement states that the permanent deal will involve

“a mutually defined enrichment program with mutually agreed parameters”,

but the deal abandons the demand made by the six United Nations resolutions that Iran must halt all enrichment. That may undermine confidence in global non-proliferation norms. Iranian state media carried boasts by, among others, President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Affairs Minister Javad Zarif that the US had caved in on its long-standing position and recognised Iran’s right to enrich. President Rouhani said:

“No matter what interpretations are given, Iran's right to enrichment has been recognised.”

He went on to say:

“"Do you know what the Geneva agreement is? It means the superpowers’ surrender to the great Iranian nation. The Geneva agreement means that the world accepts [Iran’s] civil nuclear technology, which we achieved through the efforts and the sacrifice of our young scientists”.

The agreement does not stop Iran enriching uranium to a low level of 3.5% or compel it to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges, which can be used for military purposes. Iran can continue to enrich uranium with its 10,190 operational IR1 centrifuges. They are in addition to 8,000 machines that have been installed but are inactive. Iran can also continue to build new centrifuges to replace those that wear out.

The situation has not been lost on the Iranian rulers. In January this year, President Rouhani said that there would be no destruction of existing centrifuges “under any circumstances.” Iran’s Foreign Affairs Minister said in December last year:

“The structure of our nuclear program has been maintained and the 20 percent enrichment can be resumed in less than 24 hours”.

A month later, he said:

“We did not agree to dismantle anything”.

In January, Iran’s Parliament introduced a Bill to step up enrichment to the threshold of 60% fissile purity. That would put Iran on the technical verge of 90% fissile purity, which is enough for the core of a nuclear bomb. At least 218 of the Iranian Parliament’s 290 members have expressed support for the measure. The Bill’s supporters say that uranium refined to 60% concentration would be used to fuel nuclear-powered submarines. Some analysts have speculated that the Iranian Government might be using Parliament as a bargaining tool in nuclear talks with the P5 plus 1, because they would have no choice but to obey such a Bill if the Parliament passed it.

The deal also leaves untouched Iran’s portfolio of 1,008 installed advanced IR2m centrifuges, which can speed up break-out times using 3.5% enriched uranium. This month, Iran revealed that it had developed a new generation of centrifuges that are 15 times more powerful than those currently in use, and Iranian officials have stated that the centrifuges do not violate the joint plan of action. Although enrichment using those machines has not started, the vast majority of them are fully installed and under vacuum, which means that Iran could quickly begin feeding natural uranium into those cascades and more than double its enrichment capacity.

Centrifuges are not the only concern. Iran is in the process of constructing a 40 MW heavy water research reactor, for which there is limited peaceful civilian purpose. When it is operational, that facility at Arak will be able to produce plutonium, which is one of two substances that can form the core of a nuclear weapon. Iran is not required to dismantle the incomplete heavy water research reactor or convert the plant into a light water reactor, which would be less useful for military purposes.

Under the joint plan of action, Iran agreed to freeze progress on the Arak heavy water research reactor and not to commission it or transfer fuel or heavy water to the site. It also agreed not to produce or test additional fuel or install remaining components. The interim deal does not explicitly prevent Iran from manufacturing components offsite for Arak’s nuclear reactor that could then be installed later. Iran claims that its purpose is only to make medical isotopes and conduct research, but western countries believe that it could also produce plutonium, which is the plan B route to producing a full nuclear weapon.

The one mechanism we held over Iran was the sanctions, but the interim deal has unravelled the internationally imposed sanction regime that has taken years to enforce. Sanctions were having the desired effect, so why did we take a step back from a method that was working and put trust in a state that has given us no reason to assume that that trust will be guarded? However limited, the relaxation of sanctions will relieve the pressure that has brought Iran to seek an agreement, by giving direct financial relief and indirectly restoring confidence in the Iranian economy.

Many nations and companies—as well as the Iranians themselves—have interpreted the recent agreement as the beginning of the end of the sanctions regime. It is likely that a number of countries will apply pressure to resume trade with Iran, including its former key trade partners, such as South Korea, Japan, India and China. Within weeks of the interim deal, Iran’s petrochemical sector alone had appreciated by $9 billion—that is a capital gain of almost 40%, generated entirely by a new market psychology that bets on the end of sanctions. On top of that, Iran is already making efforts to recapture its dominant role in OPEC.

All of that goes to ensure that the agreement is rewarding Iran despite the fact that its long history of clandestine nuclear activities, support for international terrorism and repeat calls for the destruction of Israel are cause for legitimate trepidation and scepticism over its intentions. Although President Rouhani’s negotiating team has reportedly been more constructive in talks, supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say on major issues, including national security and Iran’s nuclear programme. Most worryingly, Iran continues to support terrorism in the region. It is a leading sponsor of state terrorism, providing financial and material support to extremist Islamist terrorist groups across the middle east, including Hamas, Hezbollah and insurgencies against allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran agreed to the deal as part of a long history of exploiting international talks to buy time and further advance its nuclear programme. The six-month timetable to reach a final agreement could be extended by a further six months by mutual consent. President Rouhani has previously spoken of Iran buying time to advance its nuclear programme. In 2004, he gave a speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, in which he explained how he was playing for time during the nuclear talks he was conducting with the EU3. He said:

“While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear conversion] facility in Isfahan. By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work there”.

Answers to the parliamentary questions I have asked provide little assurance that the IAEA will ensure that inspections take place. Iran has agreed to the IAEA conducting only limited inspections at the main enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz. Its history of deception about its nuclear projects requires higher levels of accountability. Iran is not required to provide unfettered access to its full portfolio of nuclear facilities, including many underground and undeclared sites where the USA, Europe and Israel believe that hidden enrichment facilities might exist. It is not possible to rule out the existence of secret nuclear sites in Iran without it agreeing to allow the IAEA to conduct snap inspections anywhere beyond declared atomic installations under the agency’s additional protocol regime.

Iran is still not required to grant IAEA inspectors access to the nuclear-related Parchin site, a suspected weapons-testing facility, but it is required to declare all facilities containing nuclear material under its comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA. Under the joint statement on a framework for co-operation between Iran and the IAEA, Iran has agreed to give the IAEA information on the 16 sites designated for the construction of new nuclear power plants, clarification about its announcement about new enrichment facilities, and information about all new research reactors. Fully verifying and monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities will require a level of co-operation and information-sharing between the IAEA, the western powers and Iran that is probably unprecedented for one country’s nuclear programme.

The overt military actions of missile development are also of concern. The interim agreement does not include a promise by Iran to abstain from pursuing work on ballistic missiles or weaponisation. UN Security Council resolution 1929 requires Iran to cease activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is touching on a key issue. Does he agree that if we are to treat Iran’s protestations seriously, we must see progress being made on the ballistic missile programme?

[Dr Offord]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am concerned about the fact that the agreement does not touch upon ballistic missiles and remains an opportunity for Iran to continue its programme—as President Rouhani said—in a calm environment, and to focus on its work and experimentation on such weaponry.

I am sure that your knowledge of ballistic missiles is better than mine, Mr Williams, but I can tell the Chamber that a nuclear weapons programme has three main components: the fuel, the warhead and the delivery system. Iran is free, in the coming six-month period of the interim deal, to continue with the missile and warhead-development activities to which my hon. Friend just referred. It has successfully test-fired two new domestically made missiles, including a long-range ballistic missile with radar-evading capabilities and a fragmentation warhead. It also test fired a laser-guided air-to-surface and surface-to-surface missile known as a Bina. The country already has long-range surface-to-surface Shahab missiles with a range of about 1,250 miles that are capable of reaching Israel and—indeed—US military bases in the middle east. The recent deal does not grant IAEA inspectors access to Iran’s Parchin military facility, which is a long-suspected location for nuclear-related weapons testing.

In conclusion, it is worth reiterating the questions that I would like the Minister to answer. Does he share my concern that limited processes and structures appear to be in place should Iran walk away from negotiations with the P5 plus 1 before a permanent nuclear deal is reached within the six-month period? Given its history of duplicity and procrastination over its nuclear programme, would the Minister agree that it is only right that there will be a degree of concern that Iran might abuse the interim deal merely to pocket the concessions and walk away?

A more receptive Iranian negotiating team is being welcomed internationally. However, Iran has not tempered its anti-Israel rhetoric, recently labelling Israel as the

“sinister, unclean, rabid dog of the region.”

Does the Minister understand why many of us think Israel should be concerned about the agreement? There are also concerns that the joint plan of action has green-lighted Iran’s right to enrich, or at least that it has done so according to Iranian interpretations. Iranian state media carried boasts by President Rouhani and his Foreign Minister that the international community had caved in. What assessment has the Minister made of such statements by Iran? Iran’s latest actions do not suggest that it is complying fully with the spirit of the joint plan of action.

Does the Minister share my concern that domestic production of advanced centrifuges, which further reduce break-out times, raises questions as to Iranian intentions? Under the joint plan of action, Iran retains its full portfolio of centrifuges. Would the Minister agree that any final agreement must seek to dismantle the bulk of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? The interim agreement is undoubtedly asymmetrical in structure, with Iran merely freezing its programme while the international community chips away at sanctions. Does the Minister agree that that might influence whether Iran decides to abandon negotiations for a comprehensive deal over the next six months? Finally, does the Minister share my concern that the joint plan of action will result in billions of pounds of financial relief for Iran, enabling its continued ability to arm, fund and train its global terror network?

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said, it is right that the P5 plus 1 strive for a deal that reduces the threat of a nuclear Iran, but we must not agree to measures that have the potential to expedite such a scenario. A bad deal is worse than no deal at all. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing this important debate. He also deserves congratulations for asking all the right questions in his well-informed and technical speech, which was a great contribution. He asked all the questions that have to be asked about the scientific and technical aspects of the negotiations with Iran, and I certainly back him in all his points.

I intend to speak only briefly. I want to make it clear that I support the actions being taken by our Government; the approach that has been outlined by my right hon. and hon. Friends; and the approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the Floor of the House on Monday, with the realism with which he approached the issue, saying that there are many obstacles to be cleared. I support him in his ultimate intentions on the matter and in the way in which he is carrying them out. I also commend the Minister of State for the realism and hard-headedness that he has shown on the issue; he is absolutely right to do so.

In conducting the negotiations, if we really want to have any chance of bringing them to a successful conclusion, it is important not to get ahead of ourselves. It is fair to say, looking at the history of the matter, that we are dealing with a regime that has played for time; is extremely astute; and takes a long-term strategic view on prosecuting its interests. We need to be equally hard-headed in our approach.

Therefore, while I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have concerns about what is happening in other quarters. I also fear that some people are getting a little ahead of themselves. I am concerned by press reports saying that Baroness Ashton is due to visit Iran next month. I suppose that Baroness Ashton, in a way, represents us all, as the European Union’s High Representative under the Treaty of Lisbon. I certainly have concerns about that, and I wonder whether that is sending the right signal at this stage of events.

I have three particular concerns. The first concerns the signal that the visit sends to the Iranian side about what they can get out of the talks and what they have to give up in return. I am keen on the principle, which should have been enunciated by the international community, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I do not see how that principle is consistent with the actions of Baroness Ashton in going to Iran, and the message that that will send all around the world about the Iranian regime and the possibility of doing trade and opening up relations with it. I am worried about the signal that is being sent.

Secondly, I am worried about the signal it sends when Iran, as has been rightly said already by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, is so concerned in exporting terrorism and aggression throughout the region. It has a history of doing that in many parts of the region—most of all, at the moment, in the Syrian conflict. The Iranian regime is a key linchpin of Bashar al-Assad in his efforts to fight back against the Syrian opposition. The Iranian regime is the pillar for Bashar al-Assad as he goes into action and counter-attacks the Iranian opposition. We know that during the four years of the conflict, thousands of Iranian, Lebanese and Iraqi Shi’a militiamen have been sent into Syria to help Bashar al-Assad, and Iran has been helping to send them there. There is no doubt about it. It is widely believed that the Iranian regime has been responsible for the successes that Syria has had, resulting in the conflict coming to a stalemate.

It was reported at the weekend that Iran is stepping up its support for Bashar al-Assad, providing elite teams to gather intelligence and train troops. There have been other reports that Iran has been sending specialists in with the direct intention of helping the regime to survive. Analysts believe that this renewed support has meant that Assad feels no need to make concessions at the currently deadlocked talks in Geneva, because he thinks that things are going his way with the support that he is receiving from Iran. It therefore looks slightly strange for Baroness Ashton to be going to Iran to fly the flag when talks with Iran about its nuclear position are taking place in Vienna, and in Geneva roughly the same parties are taking part in talks about Syria, which are deadlocked because of the actions of the Iranians.

I do not think we should be sending a signal about the Iranian regime either directly or indirectly through our EU High Representative Baroness Ashton—not when that terrible conflict is still taking place, when civilians are still losing their lives, and when terrible means are being employed against them. I do not believe that we should be sending that signal at this time.

My third reason for not wanting to endorse the Iranian regime with a visit by the EU High Representative is because of the message it sends to people at home in Iran. I draw a careful distinction between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people, who are a constructive, creative people with a great culture and a great history. There is a big difference between them and their regime. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his speech about the suppression of human rights in Iran. It is a cause that I have been particularly interested in, and I know there are grave concerns about human rights across the whole human rights piece in Iran.

Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I too have been interested in the persecution of Christians in Iran. What he said was absolutely right. People who try to change their faith or who try to promote their faith in any way in Iran are subject to terrible persecution. They are thrown into prison, their homes are raided and Bibles are confiscated. Hopes were expressed that the situation would change with the election of President Rouhani, but, for whatever reason—whether he is sending mixed messages or whether he is being undercut by conflict within the regime—there is no relaxation as far as the Christians are concerned. They are still languishing in prison for their faith, and in recent times we have heard terrible reports of four Christians being sentenced to 80 lashes for partaking of communion wine. That is since President Rouhani came to power.

I simply do not want the High Representative going to Iran to take part in discussions with the regime and endorsing it by visiting when human rights violations are taking place. We should take a much more hard-headed approach. We know that sanctions have been very effective against the regime. They have had a severe effect, and there must be concerns that a premature relaxation of sanctions would send the wrong message to the regime.

Not only is the EU High Representative Baroness Ashton getting ahead of herself, but others more widely seem to be getting ahead of themselves as well. We have seen reports of a French trade delegation of 100 leading businesses visiting Iran. Apparently, there is a German delegation in Iran this week. There are reports of a Greek delegation, led by the Greek Deputy Prime Minister, going to Iran. All that is going on when the talks have barely got going and we have no idea what the final settlement might be. One wonders what signal this sends to the Iranian side about what they need to do to get concessions in return. All the beneficial economic effects and the prosperity that flows to the regime as a result can be used by the regime, giving it more resources to support Bashar al-Assad and all the other activities taking place in the middle east.

I support hon. and right hon. Members in the course they have taken; they deserve our support. I simply ask them and everybody else—I know the hon. and right hon. Members have this in mind—to keep a tight hold on Iran and to keep in mind the objective of ensuring that it does not develop a nuclear capability. I have no doubt that Iran intends to develop such a capability. I am not remotely technically qualified to pass a judgment on how far it is on the road to acquiring one, but there can be little doubt that Iran is seeking to acquire such a capability. The rest of the international community think that. Why would Iran expose itself to sanctions if it did not have that intention in mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (in the Chair)]

Mr Clappison, had you finished your remarks?

[Mr Clappison]

As long as it is shown that I was saying that we must make every effort and use every endeavour to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, I will conclude.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) on securing the debate and thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Given that this has been something of a question fest, I suspect that my best approach in summing up is not to read through the beautifully drafted piece of English that has been supplied to me, but to try to pick out the questions that have been asked and to go through them as swiftly as I can in the 10 minutes remaining.

In a sense, the debate has highlighted the issue. It would be a bit simplistic to call it a glass-half-full, glass-half-empty debate, but in a sense everyone is occupying the same piece of ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) gave us a wonderful historical tour de force of relations with Iran. There are ample reasons to be extremely cautious and very suspicious. On the other hand, once every so often an opportunity comes around. The question is whether to make that leap of faith and test it, being well aware of all the past problems, the history and the dangers, in the hope of getting to a better place eventually. Alternatively, we can be extremely cautious at every stage to the extent that it impacts on the ability to conclude that final deal. Those are difficult and complex judgments, and there are no right or wrong answers.

The last time the international community had a go at this was when the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was Foreign Secretary. It got to a stage where all the suspicions present in today’s debate were aired, and a combination of the hard-liners in Tehran and Washington derailed the deal. The consequence of that was that the steps towards nuclear production simply continued. Arguably, as a result of not being able to take those bold steps, the situation got worse, not better—I know it is difficult to second-guess these things now. It is absolutely right to be cautious and sensible and to have an eye to history, but we should see on this occasion whether we can test the feelings and sentiment in Iran.

I will try to answer the various questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon asked. He is absolutely correct to say that the interim agreement does not resolve international suspicions. As he will have guessed from my opening remarks, I absolutely agree that it does not. It is merely a first step that buys us the time to move towards further discussions on the issues, of which he raised a great many. A comprehensive agreement will absolutely need to address the proliferation concerns that he set out. Let me be clear: we will not sign a deal if it does not address those concerns. Secondly, he made the point that, through the sanctions relief regime, we have eased the pressure on Iran’s economy for very limited concessions in return.

It is worth saying that the interim deal addresses some of the nuclear programme’s most concerning elements: the eradication of the stockpile of 20% enriched uranium; and Iran being forbidden from installing further centrifuges, which is different from developing them. It also eases the monitoring regime carried out by the IAEA. We and the US estimate the sanctions relief given to Iran to be about $7 billion over the six-month period. That is a relatively small fraction of the $60 billion to $100 billion of restricted Iranian oil funds held abroad and of the $60 billion to $70 billion it needs to finance its foreign imports. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns, but there is a sense of proportion in that.

My hon. Friend asked about what are called in the parlance the PMDs—possible military dimensions—of Iran’s nuclear programme. That is very much a concern. He is right to say that they are not addressed in the interim agreement, but they are a key part of the final negotiations that will take place so they will be addressed. Indeed, the joint plan of action makes it clear that the joint commission, composed of the E3 plus 3 and Iran, will work with the IAEA to facilitate the resolution of all those issues.

Fourthly—if I have got the order right—my hon. Friend asked about the sanctions relief enabling the Iranians to fund terrorism, which touches on a point made by several other Members. There is no doubt that Iran’s support of terrorism throughout the region is a malignant force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) mentioned, were there need for evidence, considerable evidence is available—it is a statement of fact—that Iranian support for Hezbollah and directly through the Quds Force has played a considerable part in the conflict in Syria. That is not the only example by any means of Iran’s malign influence in the area; it has been seen recently in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and right around the Arabian peninsula. That will have to be addressed if relations with Iran are to be normalised in any meaningful way.

I guess that the question about the granting of access to the IAEA was driven by the Parchin military facility issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon is right that the interim agreement does not allow the IAEA access to Parchin. However, following Iran’s agreement with the IAEA on 8 February about the exploding bridgewire detonators, we hope that we can make progress. Indeed, that will have to be addressed as part of any final and comprehensive agreement.

My hon. Friend asked, perfectly reasonably, about our assessment of whether the Iranian actions at the moment are within the spirit of the JPA agreement. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) asked in particular about the continued production of advanced centrifuges with reduced break-out times and whether that poses questions about Iranian intentions. There is no doubt that we would much rather that Iran had not done that. The IAEA, however, has looked at what it has done thus far and confirmed that it is currently complying with the JPA’s strict terms. As part of the 24 November agreement, Iran has committed not to install or bring into operation any new centrifuges in the main enrichment facilities.

That, however, does not help with confidence-building measures and, as we touched on earlier, there will be a real trust issue if the Iranian Government continue to act in this way. Again, that will have to be addressed as part of the comprehensive agreement.

Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the concerns that Iran could simply pocket the benefits and walk away from the negotiations. Indeed it could, but, if so, it has a great deal to lose. The Iranian economy is going through the floor and there is real hardship in Tehran. Anyone who looks at this—intelligence agency or otherwise —realises that the Iranian economy is in a very bad place indeed, and the key electoral promise of the Government was to restore the economy, so they have a considerable incentive. Without such an agreement, they can do absolutely nothing to bump-start their economy.

If the deal falls to pieces, no doubt international reaction will be tough and Iran will wear the blame for that. The full sanctions regime will simply be reinstated and it will move backwards very quickly. In an environment in which Iran had toyed with the international community and let it down, it would be difficult to restart talks for some time. My hon. Friend is right that, in theory, Iran could pocket what it has got at the moment and walk away, but that might not be wise on its part. There is no intention whatever to offer further sanctions relief over and above what it has got until it has delivered on the key terms of the agreement.

Let me turn to some of the other questions asked in various contributions. It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked about the power struggle in Iran and he is absolutely right. At the moment, the indication is that the supreme leader backs the regime in the talks being conducted: indeed, the substantive concessions made thus far would not have been possible without his support. However, as we all know, hard-liners who do not wish the process well are operating in the background. The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about whether Rouhani can deliver. Our assessment is that he can, but if we push him too hard, it probably will not take a great deal for that to change. If he cannot show real benefit from the process, that assessment must be called into doubt.

The hon. Gentleman asked about human rights abuses in the country and he is right to highlight them. I have the figures here and the situation is appalling—there are no two ways about it. There have been reports of at least 400 executions in 2013. Iran has the second highest number of journalists in prison in the world. Opposition leaders have been detained for more than two years. Arrests of human rights defenders and journalists continue, as does persecution of religious and ethnic minorities. The Government will continue to hold Iran to account. We are not being soft: more than 80 EU sanctions are designated on individual Iranians and entities responsible for human rights violations.

[Mr Clappison]

May I say how grateful I am to the Minister for his personal interest in and attention to the issue of persecution of Christians in Iran? He deserves tribute for his stand.

[Hugh Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend. He is very kind. One of the curious things about my job is that I end up handling the majority of the correspondence that flows into the Foreign Office. In my first few months, it was noticeable that one of the subjects raised most regularly by Members throughout the House was the fate of Christians in the middle east. In the various visits I have made around the region, I have tried to make a specific point of seeking out Christian leaders to talk to them about what is happening. I had a fascinating couple of hours with the Copts in Egypt—there are between 10 million and 12 million of them—and I will continue to take a close interest as I make my various visits.

To finish my response to the hon. Member for Strangford, he is right that religious freedom is a key part of where Iran needs to get to. That is something that is largely lacking under the current regime.

Commission Work Programme 2014

James Clappison Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

No. I do not think that any member state would be able to say that it unreservedly welcomes and endorses, absolutely everything in the Commission’s work programme. Of the measures described in the work programme, there are some that we positively welcome, others where we think the proposal seems okay at first sight but we very much want to examine the detail of the promised measure before we come to a final conclusion, and others where we are quite open in saying that we think the Commission’s suggestion is mistaken. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), we have already expressed considerable concerns about the data protection package, and we will continue to negotiate to try to ensure that it does not over-burden business while providing adequate protection for personal data.

Nor can we welcome the draft regulation to establish a European public prosecutor’s office. We believe that the Commission’s evidence for this proposal is weak, and we will continue to challenge it on its unacceptable, rather summary response to the yellow card that national Parliaments raised about it.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who follows this issue very closely.

[Mr Clappison]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he convey to the Commission how deeply disappointing it is for Parliaments to gather the requisite number of signatures for petitions from individual Chambers and for the Commission then peremptorily to say that it will go ahead all the same? That is very dispiriting for Parliaments.

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree. It would be easier to accept the Commission’s unwelcome decision if, at the very least, it had produced a detailed explanation of its reasons and showed proper respect for the 19 different reasoned opinions. I continue to agree with my hon. Friend that the proposal is wrong, but I made it very clear at the last meeting of the General Affairs Council that I regarded the Commission’s behaviour on the measure as unacceptable, and I was pleased that Ministers from some other member states then spoke out and endorsed my criticisms of its approach.

The House will be aware that tomorrow marks a year since the Prime Minister’s speech setting out a vision for European Union reform. Today, there is growing support across Europe for reform and for accepting that it needs to become more competitive and democratic, so that it is a Europe in which, to quote the Dutch Government, our enterprise is based on being

“European where necessary, national where possible.”

As I said last week at the very stimulating conference organised by Open Europe and the Fresh Start group, we will get behind the proposal made by the Dutch Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, for a governance manifesto for the new Commission—agreed by the 28 accountable national Heads of State and Government—that lays out what Europe should focus on and, crucially, what should be left to member states. On the new items in the work programme, the House can be assured that we will be vigilant in relation to the subsidiarity principle and do our utmost to ensure that action is taken at EU level only when that is the correct level to take proposals forward.

We already work with partners across Europe to deliver concrete changes that benefit this country and every EU member state, including the first ever cut in the EU’s seven-year budget, which protects the British rebate; agreement on a single European patent after 23 years of negotiation, which safeguards the intellectual property of innovative British businesses; keeping the UK out of any eurozone bail-out facility, which safeguards British interests; and abolishing the obscene policy of discarding caught fish, which is a key element of wholesale reform of the common fisheries policy. It can therefore be done: reform is possible and it is happening. However, the Government recognise that there is much more still to do to make Europe more flexible, competitive and democratically accountable. Ministers will use every opportunity to push forward that agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Thomas]

It is not for me to comment on the Conservative party’s membership, or not, of the EPP. We will no doubt hear more if there is any truth in the rumour.

The Commission’s work programme quite rightly cites deepening the single market as a key priority. It is the biggest such market in the world: a consumer market of 500 million people that generates £11 trillion in economic activity. It remains a deep concern of many in business that the Conservative party is willing to put at risk Britain’s membership of such a huge market for British goods and services. The Prime Minister also appears to be willing to risk our participation in bilateral free trade agreements, not least the hugely important potential EU-US trade agreement.

We on this side of the House recognise that to help Britain compete in the global market and uphold British living standards, the UK needs to advance, together with others in Europe, a reform agenda that promotes economic growth across the EU and, as a result, helps to tackle unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. That includes, as the work programme sets out, the need to extend and complete the single market—I agree with the Minister’s comments on the digital market—so that British companies can benefit from the opportunities of trade with our nearest allies. The operation of the single market in existing sectors must be protected in the face of potential closer integration between eurozone states.

The work programme outlines the continuing work of the Commission on economic governance and the banking union. Clearly, the stability of the eurozone, and sorting out the problems faced by banks in eurozone countries, is not just of great importance to countries in the single currency—it has a significant impact on the UK, too. Why it takes the European Union to clamp down on bankers’ bonuses, when the Government should be doing it, is a question we are still waiting to get a sensible answer on from Ministers. In this country, we still need real reform of competition in our banking sector to help small businesses get the support they need to grow, employ more people at decent wages and help Britain earn its way to better living standards.

Another important theme of the work programme is European co-operation on justice and security. The Commission is currently negotiating with the UK on the justice and security measures that we can opt back into. Our police and security forces are rightly working ever closer with their counterparts across Europe, co-operating on issues such as international terrorism, organised crime and human trafficking. For example, we would not have seen the arrest of one of the terrorists responsible for the 7/7 attacks in London without help from our European colleagues. More than 4,000 suspected criminals have been sent back to other EU countries to face justice, more than 90% of whom were foreign citizens, and while not perfect, the European arrest warrant has helped to tackle the so-called Costa del Crime, with 49 of the 65 top UK fugitives hiding in southern Spain having been returned to face justice. In short, we depend on our European partners for intelligence and operational support in order to protect the British public and the freedoms they enjoy. To ensure that those goals continue to be realised, the Opposition want to see the EU’s collective effectiveness further improved.

As I mentioned, the Government have triggered the justice and home affairs opt-out. Indeed, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary told the House that the block opt-out was first and foremost about bringing powers back home, yet the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), having reviewed the significance of the justice and home affairs opt-out, said,

“we see little evidence of a genuine and significant repatriation of powers.”

Whom should the House believe when making that judgment—our European Scrutiny Committee or the Home Secretary?

[Mr Clappison]

Will the hon. Gentleman remind us who negotiated the opportunity for a block opt-out?

[Mr Thomas]

It was one of a series of sensible reforms that the Labour party negotiated when in power. It was right that we had that judgment to make. It is clear from the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, however, that the list of measures the Government want to opt back into will not deliver what the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary claim it will—a significant repatriation of powers—or at least that appears to be the case, on the basis of the Committee’s conclusions.

It might help the House to reach our own judgment were the Government to update us on the negotiations with the European Commission on the measures they want to opt back into. For example, can the Minister reassure the House that the European arrest warrant will not be put at risk this year? If Ministers’ rhetoric is taken at face value, there remains a threat to continued British participation in European co-operation on cross-border police investigations, while UK involvement in criminal record sharing, work on trafficking and online child pornography, as well as deportation arrangements for suspected criminals, are all at risk too as a result of the opt-out. Such measures provide a vital legal process to prevent people from fleeing justice and to ensure that those responsible for crimes are held accountable.

Finally, on the tobacco products directive, the House might recall that Labour MEPs voted in favour of a range of proposals aimed at protecting children from being targeted by tobacco companies, including graphic warnings on packaging, the banning of chocolate and strawberry-flavoured cigarettes and a future ban on menthol cigarettes. Ignoring warnings from Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and even the advice of their own Health Secretary, Conservative MEPs voted to weaken cigarette warnings, for weaker regulation of electronic cigarettes and to delay the ban on menthols, and blocked a ban on slim cigarettes, which I understand are particularly targeted at young women. Will the Minister tell us how those negotiations are progressing?

In general terms, the Opposition support the work programme, but 2014 will be remembered less for this programme and more, I suspect, for how the Prime Minister’s continued weakness in front of right-wing Back Benchers threatened our influence across the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Clappison Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue, and it has been a key concern for the Foreign Secretary and all involved on behalf of the Government. We have absolutely urged the coalition to make sure it is broad based and includes Christians who it will bring to Geneva II. Our hope is that that will be achieved.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that persecution of Christians is also continuing unabated in Iran, with reports of Christians being lashed for drinking communion wine, having their homes raided and having Bibles confiscated? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the particular case of Maryam Naghash Zargaran, who last year received a sentence of four years of imprisonment on account of her Christian beliefs and whose health is now reported as deteriorating? Will my right hon. Friend take up her case with the Iranians?

[Hugh Robertson]

I certainly will, and my hon. Friend correctly highlights the serious position of Christians, and indeed of other minorities, in Iran. It is important to remember that despite the very welcome unfreezing that is going on in some areas, in other areas little or nothing has changed, and that will very much be part of the negotiations as we move forward.

European Council

James Clappison Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

There is a lot in the European Council conclusions. I do not think it would serve a huge purpose if a written statement simply rehearsed every single item when there is a link in the statement on the Council conclusions to the full text itself. I am also somewhat constrained—quite properly—by the time permitted to respond to the urgent question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), however, is right: this was a very important breakthrough. There was a commitment by all 28 Heads of State and Government for European countries to do more to help people in Syria who have been displaced and are in need and those who have taken refuge in neighbouring countries who face huge problems. What is also needed—we have supported the efforts of other EU countries on this—is some declaration, if we cannot get a resolution, at the United Nations Security Council to provide safe passage for humanitarian organisations to reach people in Syria who are in desperate need and find it impossible to get access to the aid available.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has undoubtedly won some crucial victories in our national interest, in the face of the unremitting efforts of the Brussels institutions to fulfil ambitions that are set out in the treaties for all to see, including that of having a European army. Sadly, there are some new commitments in the conclusions, including one in paragraph 9 for

“an EU Maritime Security Strategy by June 2014, on the basis of a joint Communication from the Commission and the High Representative, taking into account the opinions of Member States”.

Is that not precisely a case of the Brussels institutions being in the driving seat and an open invitation for them to indulge in more competence creep?

[Mr Lidington]

The maritime security strategy is about trying to make the different efforts of the 28 European Governments over matters such as piracy and port security more cohesive and co-ordinated than they are at present. It does not involve any kind of direction. It is trying to establish a framework for effective partnership and working together so that we have fewer weak links in security—whether it be maritime or terrestrial—anywhere across the continent of Europe. Any weakness in security arrangements elsewhere in Europe can end up providing a point of entry for people who want to threaten our interests directly, so this sort of effective working together is very much in the interests of this country.

Iran

James Clappison Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We will be on our guard against any attempt to undermine the agreement, but it has the backing of the US Government, Russia, China, France and Britain—the five permanent members of the Security Council—and it has clearly received widespread support around the world. Therefore, as I have said, we would discourage anyone from undermining it, but I believe the world will give the agreement the chance to succeed.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to be cautious if not sceptical. To persuade us of the genuineness of Iran’s intentions, would it not help if it were to end its involvement in terrorism in that region of the world, including in Syria, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has rightly said; and end its involvement in the repression of religious minorities, including Christians and Jewish people, in Iran? Would it also not help if Iran stopped the hate speech against Israel, a recent example of which came from the Supreme Leader, who just a few days ago referred to Israel as

“the sinister, unclean rabid dog of the region”?

That seems to have escaped the attention of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).

[Mr Hague]

I agree on the importance of those issues and of Iran changing its approach to them. Clearly, the negotiations were solely on the nuclear programme. It is right that they were, because in order to make progress, we must focus exclusively on that. However, in our wider discussions with Iran, which have become possible with the upgrading of our diplomatic relations that I have announced, we will want to address the full range of issues, including the sponsorship of terrorism in other countries and the hate speech to which my hon. Friend refers. We will go on to discuss those other issues with Iran.

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme

James Clappison Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I enjoyed our joint visit to Gaza. He and I agree on many issues involving the Palestinian Authority and Israel. We can certainly agree that the situation must be resolved quickly and that the current US-led negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians offer perhaps the best chance of resolving those issues since the state of Israel was founded.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hollobone]

I will happily give way. In answering this intervention, I will also try to tackle the previous intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clappison]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he not agree that Iran has shown ample evidence of its hostility towards a peaceful solution to the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis and that Iran’s aggression is in fact directed towards the existence of Israel?

[Mr Hollobone]

I agree with my hon. Friend that Iran has said some unfriendly and unpleasant things about the state of Israel and its right to exist, which he and I and most Members totally abhor. The question in the previous intervention was whether Israel’s possession of a nuclear weapon was not a big issue in itself. Of course it is, but the whole Israeli mindset has to do with defending Israel’s people, not projecting aggression elsewhere.

I know that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is looking at me quizzically because he will not agree with much of that, but the perspective of the state of Israel is that the Jewish diaspora throughout the world, but mainly in eastern and western Europe, suffered the horrors of the holocaust, and out of that was born the state of Israel. He and I and others can agree or disagree about that history, but the fact is that half the present world’s Jewish population lives in the state of Israel, and they have found nowhere safe in the world throughout the history of the Jewish people. The state of Israel now offers the best chance for Jewish people to live in peace. They have developed a nuclear weapon or weapons because they want to defend themselves. They do not want to deploy that weapon against anyone else; they just want to be left in peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hollobone]

The right hon. Gentleman’s powerful intervention is absolutely right. I hope the Foreign Office is better informed than I am and can give us the statistics. I am not sure, however, whether sanctions have brought the Iranians to the table; I do not know. It might well be that that is nothing to do with sanctions, but is all a ruse for Iran to buy diplomatic cover. What do I mean by that? If Iran can be seen to engage with the P5+1, it makes it much more difficult for the Israelis to take out Iran’s nuclear programme with military strikes. That is the point of the rapprochement.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any agreement, interim or full, that allows the Iranians to retain their capability to make a weapon—perhaps not now, but in the future—would be a bad deal that was not worth having. From the perspective of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and I hope ours, any capability left in Iran that enables the regime or a future one to develop nuclear warheads should be completely unacceptable.

Iran currently has all sorts of capability. The centrifuge capability has recently been beefed up, with IR-2 centrifuges that can enrich uranium five times faster than the old ones. There is the heavy water production plant at Arak, which nuclear inspectors have never been allowed inside. There is a facility at Fordow that is underground for one reason—so that nobody can get to it. There is also the centrifuge capability at Natanz.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the multiple avenues Iran has to achieving to a nuclear capability, which are in addition to the Iranian regime’s history of stalling, lies and concealment. Would he welcome a statement from the Minister that the Government and the international community will be rigorous and exacting in their approach to the regime and will leave it nowhere near the threshold of obtaining a nuclear capability?

[Mr Hollobone]

I would welcome such a reassurance, but I am also looking forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s speech. I will soon sit down, because I have already spoken for far too long. Almost every Member present is more qualified to speak on these issues than me, and I am interested to hear what they say.

It seems to me that we face in Iran a country that wants to develop a nuclear warhead and that is mad and bad enough, either now or at some point, to have a high likelihood of deploying such a weapon. I do not believe that that is fanciful talk; I think it is a definite prospect, about which we should be very worried. In the next six months or so, we have a chance to negotiate a proper deal that will put Iran’s chances of making a nuclear weapon out of reach and give Israel, Saudi Arabia and every other country in the region the security they need, as we look forward to what I hope will prove to be a much more peaceful century around the world than the last one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome the debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is to be commended on securing. He is right about the importance of the issue, which is on a different scale from other issues that we are involved in, in the middle east or elsewhere, important though those are.

I remind the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that the debate is about Iran, not Israel or Saudi Arabia—still less about nuclear disarmament. Disarmament combined with unreciprocated concessions to aggressive regimes did not always guarantee a brilliant outcome in the previous century. Iran is an aggressive regime. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the Iranian people and culture, which I distinguish from the regime. Many people in Iran are oppressed by it, and notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, it is still a long way from being a democracy. It was observed that there were 3,000 possible candidates, although I was told that 678 presidential candidates were disqualified by Ayatollah Khomeini as ideologically unsound. Only six were allowed to proceed—one of whom is now President Rouhani. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that an approach from any source in Iran must be engaged with constructively, and I support their way of proceeding. However, I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that we must not look through rose-tinted spectacles at President Rouhani.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even that flawed electoral process makes Iran rather more democratic than Saudi Arabia, which we traditionally treat as a close ally?

[Mr Clappison]

It is nothing like the democracy that I would like the Iranian people to have and that many of them would want. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that we should not see President Rouhani as a completely new broom. We must not be naive. He has been part of the present regime since its inception and has held high office in it. He has been involved in its nuclear negotiations in the past, and, as my hon. Friend showed in the quotation he used, has stalled and used other devices to further Iran’s nuclear intentions.

I believe that it is the resolute intention of the Iranian regime to acquire nuclear weapons. Why on earth would it have put itself through what it has gone through for so many years—sanctions, international opprobrium, all that has happened in the United Nations and all the economic problems that have been caused for Iran—if not because it wanted nuclear weapons come what may? Is the international community getting it all wrong, and have all the leaders over the years been completely mistaken? I think not. We must accept that the Iranian regime is determined to have nuclear weapons. We should not let them fall into its hands. No matter who else may or may not have them, that regime has demonstrated beyond peradventure its aggressive intent in the region and throughout the world, through the export of terrorism by proxy to other countries in the region, including Lebanon and Syria; through its involvement in propping up the Syrian regime now; through its export of worldwide terrorism against Israel and Israeli citizens; and through its leaders’ aggressive statements in the past. We can have no doubts about the nature of the regime and the fact that we should not let nuclear weapons fall into those hands.

It is right, however, to engage with the regime, and I support the Government’s approach, but we must take an exacting and resolute approach in negotiations. We must not exaggerate, as I think the hon. Member for Cheltenham was in danger of doing, any progress that has been made already. We are only at the interim stage and have not even concluded an interim agreement. Let us not rush to say that there is agreement before it happens. We need to apply exacting and rigorous conditions to the regime and should take the view that if there is any doubt or anything unsatisfactory in any negotiations it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement.

If the Government can reach an agreement that leaves Iran nowhere near the threshold of holding nuclear weapons, that rolls back the Iranian nuclear programme and that creates a framework in which peace can be achieved in the region, they deserve to be encouraged. They must have high expectations and I encourage them to be rigorous and, if necessary, cynical about the regime. In the past it has played for time, stalled and tried to reach a certain level. Iran must go back to the position it was in before it started its nuclear armaments programme; it must dismantle it and put itself far from the threshold of having nuclear weapons.

I agreed with some of what the hon. Member for Islington North said, although not all of it. Human rights are human rights anywhere in the region; but human rights in Iran are at stake. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, if they get a chance, to raise the issue of human rights with Iran. The regime has an unenviable record on human rights in many respects. I have in the past taken up the issue of persecution of Christians by the Iranian regime, which included death or prison sentences merely for practising their faith. We should not go into the negotiations with any illusions about the regime.

Iran and Syria

James Clappison Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. He is a tough negotiator. I do not want anybody to think anything other than that, because he represents his country very ably and very frankly. He does not hold back from telling us when there is a serious problem. Those are all hallmarks that one would expect from a good negotiator. Yes, we will continue to work closely with him, knowing that he has to keep, or win, the full confidence of the Iranian system, just as we have to maintain confidence in western and Arab nations and in Israel that we are doing the right thing.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s policy of vigilance towards Iran. May I suggest that it is extremely desirable that any eventual agreement with Iran leaves it standing nowhere near the threshold of becoming a nuclear armed power, because that would be very bad news for the region and for this country and the rest of the world?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is totally right about that. Of course, the purpose of our negotiations is to ensure that concrete actions are taken, even as part of an interim step, to give necessary assurances to the international community and to then allow us to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of this issue. That, of course, means dealing with all the concerns about what the International Atomic Energy Agency calls the “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Clappison Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I am due to make my first visit to the region next week, so will be addressing many of the concerns outlined in the hon. Gentleman’s question. As he knows, the Foreign Office funded the report carried out by Baroness Scotland. We continue to urge the Government of Israel to implement it in full. As I have said, I will be taking that up next week.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Minister to his responsibilities—if I may say so, he brings a terrific track record.

Does the Minister agree that the question of detainees is inextricably linked to the overall security situation in the region and progress in peace talks? Does he share my concern that Hamas is resolutely and literally trying to undermine the peace process in the region by building a tunnel from Gaza into Israel, no doubt for the purposes of promoting terrorism? What can we do to remove that obstacle?

[Mr Speaker]

That was quite a cheeky attempt by the hon. Gentleman. I think the Minister should try to focus his remarks on the issue of child detainees. We are grateful to him for doing so.