Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Lord Pannick
Main Page: Lord Pannick (Crossbench - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Pannick's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very surprised at the Minister’s answers in relation to the £400 million. Does he accept that an international arbitration tribunal—an independent tribunal—has ruled that this country owes £400 million to the state of Iran? Does he accept that? Does he also accept that it is vital that this country complies with its international obligations to meet international arbitration tribunal reports? Does he also accept that to pay that sum without further delay would be to meet our obligations, and not to pay a ransom?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, no one disputes that there is a historic debt, one which was owed to pre-revolutionary Iran. There is no dispute or debate about that. However, here I am answering a Question about Nazanin, yet the majority of questions relate to that money. The combination of that issue with the issue that we are dealing with—an appallingly tragic human case—is exactly what we should be avoiding. Otherwise, this does become a hostage situation and any payment of any money becomes payment for a hostage. That is not in our international current, medium or long-term interests.