Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, what a beautiful, beautiful, moving contribution that was from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. It is perhaps the finest I have heard in my 20 years as Member of the House.

Having read the 16 November Commons debate and the procedural opinion of the Commons authorities on sub judice, I have to say, surely, whether or not the High Court upholds, IMS’s liability to repay MODSAF should have no bearing whatever on what is essentially a moral argument—one of right or wrong. My comments do not relate to the legal position or the concern of the Commons authorities—only the moral argument.

What is obvious is that in recent months the view of the Commons has become clear and is well documented in Hansard. I cannot understand why the Commons authorities intervened in the way they did. No doubt, the Iranian embassy in London will be closely following events in Parliament. It will now, as we speak, be on live feed, listening to this debate. It will evaluate statements made by Ministers, including our Prime Minister, whose contribution to this debate has been less than helpful.

Let us be in no doubt that the louder the calls for a settlement, the more likely it is that the Iranians will hold out in the belief that a financial settlement is likely to come sooner rather than later. That is the Catch-22 position we are now in. Transparency will inevitably have its price. The louder Parliament shouts, the more resolute they will become. When caught in the headlamps of such a dilemma and in such contradictions, it is best to turn to the principle. To me, it is clear: we owe them money. The so-called niceties, norms, modalities and complexities of international diplomacy are obstacles, but they should be set aside. We have all been brought up to pay our debts, and so should the state. Arguments over the background to the debt are a hindrance, only exacerbating a position that is increasingly indefensible. We owe the money. It is their money. It is not our money. The response of the Government lacks all credibility. I say: pay up, and pay up now.

Perhaps I may say something more controversial. We should ignore our kith and kin in America who, at the moment, are suffering a worldwide-role identity crisis. Trump is a symptom of that. We need to begin a process of rapprochement with Iran and others. We need to rethink our approach to relationships with Islamic states and if, as we heard in the previous debate, we can talk to the Taliban, I am sure we can talk to the Iranians. As the world moves on from oil to renewables, the relationship between oil-dependent Islamic states and the advanced nations, particularly in the West, will change. It will be more problematic. Today’s differences of opinion could turn very ugly indeed, and therefore we should act with very great care.

Finally, the Minister today is bound by his brief and, despite his reputation for frankness, cannot say what he might believe, and I suspect he agrees far more with us than with the brief he has been given. The much respected mantra “We recognise the legal duty to repay the debt and will explore the legal options for doing so”, which we see repeated in all sorts of documents and speeches, is simply not good enough. I hope that the powers that stand behind the Minister are listening to this debate. They should think again and pay up. Parliament says pay up. We should pay up.