Syria and North Korea

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I am grateful for that question because there was never a proposition for general sanctions against Russia, for instance. That was a piece of media ectoplasm, if you like, Mr Speaker. We have strong support for the idea of taking the evidence that the fact-finding mission will accumulate, using it to isolate the individuals who may have been responsible—by the way, there may be Russian military advisers who are complicit—and not only imposing sanctions on them, which I know my hon. Friend agrees would be the right thing to do, but arraigning them for war crimes.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

What role does the Foreign Secretary see the United Kingdom playing in confronting the bellicose actions of the North Korean regime?

Iran’s Influence in the Middle East

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Iran’s influence in the Middle East.

I believe that Iran 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 the insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran actively sponsors international terror groups committed to the destruction of Israel, which act as proxies for the Islamic Republic. I place on record that the people of Iran are a fine collective, with a remarkable history in the region. However, the modern-day Iran, ruled by the mullahs, is a theocratic regime, based on the principle of rule of law by Islamic jurists.

Since the election of President Rouhani in 2013, Iran’s relations with the international community have slowly improved, but its domestic human rights abuses, nuclear programme and support for international terrorism continue unchecked. Although Iran’s president runs the economy and influences day-to-day decisions, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the final say on most major issues, including national security and Iran’s nuclear programme. The country works not only with foreign states in promoting its ideological agenda, but also with proxies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Daesh.

First, I will discuss Syria. Iran views it as a valuable line of communication into Lebanon to support the militant Iranian proxy organisation, Hezbollah.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

As the hon. Gentleman moves on to the specifics, may I take him back to the general? Is it not the fact that being a vicious dictatorship at home, like so many such states in history, makes the state a menace to its neighbours as well? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look first at the destabilisation in the middle east, but also at the incredible repression that is happening and whether we can do more to support the opposition to this vile regime.

[Dr Offord]

I am going to focus purely on the influence within the region. If other hon. Members wish to concern themselves with conditions in Iran itself, that will be very welcome.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

To pick up on the previous intervention, something that links Iran’s international and the domestic activities is that it has passed a new counter-terrorism law to try to clean up the country. At least, that is what it claims—but it does not include Hezbollah and Hamas. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the most worrying sign of all?

[Dr Offord]

That certainly is a worrying sign. As I will go on to explain, those organisations are some of the recipients of significant amounts of resources that come from the Iranian regime.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

This is a really important debate. Following on from the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), would the hon. Gentleman also include Pyongyang and Yemen on his list of Iranian spheres of influence?

[Dr Offord]

I will do; if I can get to my speech, I hope I will be able to elucidate some comments about the places that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

The Iranian leadership has cited Syria as being Iran’s 35th province, with President Assad’s Alawite minority-led regime being a crucial buffer between the influence of Saudi Arabia and the United States, so it can be of no surprise to any of us that Iran has chosen to involve itself in the conflict in Syria.

The response of the Syrian regime to the Arab spring was a brutal one. Since 2011, thousands of civilians and armed militia have been killed by Government forces in Syria. Such action has prompted many Syrian army officers to join the opposition movement and form the Free Syrian Army. With the armed resistance increasing and looking ever more likely to topple the Assad regime, the clerical regime in Iran began deploying its military capability in the country. The senior commander of the Rasoulallah division of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Hamadani, was dispatched to Syria. That man was responsible for operations in the Iran-Iraq war, as well as for suppressing the 2009 uprising in Iran. He decided that the forces sent by Iran to Syria were primarily to be at command level, as evidenced by the capture of 48 IRGC commanders two months later. That meant that infantry were needed, and the creation of Daesh occurred as a result.

Former US Secretary of State John Kerry is on the record as saying:

“ISIS was created by Assad releasing 1,500 prisoners from jail and Maliki releasing 1,000 people in Iraq who were put together as a force of terror types.”

[Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has brought forward an important and timely subject for consideration today. He mentions the US—does he agree that many of us were disappointed with the Iran nuclear deal? It dealt with Iran’s nuclear capacity, but there was a missed opportunity to tackle some of the state-sponsored terrorism and other underlying causes of instability in the middle east. That is something that we will look to America to do now with a new President.

[Dr Offord]

I hope to come on to that point, but I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s assertion. I believe that the Iranian nuclear deal was a missed opportunity. Not only did it not address issues surrounding terrorism, it also failed to consider human rights in Iran—something that is very important not only to myself and other hon. Members, but also to many of my constituents, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today.

The Iranian regime made use of its experience in suppression and control by working with the Syrian regime to achieve two objectives. The first was called the infiltration project, which was designed to instil division and dissent in the opposition; the second was the knapsack project, which was designed to bring about armed clashes between the groups and the tribes.

Although the IRGC’s Quds force remains the primary extraterritorial fighting force, and the primary force in Syria, IRGC ground forces, as well as those of the regular Iranian army, have also been employed in the conflict. In addition to those troops, more than 70,000 non-Iranian and Iranian forces have been deployed by the IRGC to fight in Syria. According to IRGC reports, that exceeds the 50,000 Syrian forces. That activity required money that became available at the right time—as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said, through the nuclear deal.

One of my principal concerns about the Iranian nuclear deal was that it unfroze huge resources that allowed terror to be funded in the middle east region. It appears that that is what is occurring. Over the last five years, Tehran has budgeted about $100 billion for the conflict, under cover from Khamenei’s office. That money has been spent on the purchase of military weaponry and on Syria’s own military expenses—$1 billion is spent solely on the salaries of the forces affiliated with the IRGC, including military forces, militias and Shi’ite networks.

Turning to another area of conflict in the middle east, we can also see the influence of Iran in Yemen.

[Graham Jones]

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that in January—I think it was on 17 January—the UN panel of experts reported an update on Yemen. One of the sections in that report is entitled the

“large-scale supply of weapons from the Islamic Republic of Iran to Yemen”.

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that Iran is now taking a larger and increasingly influential role in Yemen and affecting that conflict?

[Dr Offord]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope to go on to give some examples of where weaponry has gone into Yemen and how it is being used against allied forces—both the UK and the US.

Iran operates a complex network of weapon-smuggling routes throughout the region in defiance of four Security Council resolutions, which are resolutions 1737, 1747, 1803 and 1835. In October 2016, Reuters reported that Iran had significantly increased weapons transfers to the Houthis, the militia fighting the Saudi-backed Government in Yemen. US and western officials said that, based on intelligence they had seen, the frequency of arms transfers on known overland smuggling routes had increased notably.

According to sources, the transfers have included short-range missiles and small arms as well as anti-ship missiles, explosives, money and personnel. Much of the smuggling activity has been through Oman, which neighbours Yemen.

The US navy disclosed in April 2016 that it had confiscated an Iranian weapons cache headed to the Houthis in Yemen from a small fishing craft in the Arabian sea, seizing 1,500 Kalashnikov rifles, 200 rocket-propelled grenade launchers and 21 .50-caliber machine guns. That was the fourth such seizure by the US navy in the region since September 2015. US officials have said that they are looking into whether components of missiles used in attempted strikes by the Houthis against a US warship and a United Arab Emirates vessel might have benefited from Iranian parts or originated in Iran. General Joseph Votel, the commander of the US military command centre, said he suspected an Iranian role in arming the Houthis, and noted that Iran was one of the possible suppliers of the type of shore-based missile technology seen in Yemen.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there seems to have been a reluctance over the years from countries right across the world to deal with the core issue of Iran? Surely it is time we dealt with it, given that 28,000 to 30,000 people have died through terrorism.

[Dr Offord]

I have a constituent who has spoken to me about this issue, and his view of the middle east in general is that, as a result of the Iraq conflict, Governments are loth to enter into any more conflicts. The Iranian regime can get away with its activities simply because the allied and US forces chose the wrong target.

According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Iranian and Hezbollah leaders have been spotted in Yemen advising the Houthi troops and are likely to be responsible for training the Houthis to use the type of sophisticated guided missiles fired at the US navy. Like Yemen, Lebanon is being used as a proxy sparring ground by Iran and Saudi Arabia. The long leadership vacuum came to an end last autumn when the Parliament elected former general Michel Aoun as the country’s new President. The shortness of time prevents me from discussing political matters, so I will restrict my comments to military ones.

[Mr Spellar]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from Yemen, given all that he has correctly outlined, is it not extraordinary that that the Government are even considering ceasing supplies to countries in the Saudi-led and United Nations-endorsed and backed coalition, which is trying to repel the Iranian-backed Houthi rebellion? Such action would be not only detrimental to stability in that region but absolutely devastating for the British aerospace and defence industry.

[Dr Offord]

I certainly have some sympathy with that view, but it is beyond my pay grade to discuss what the British Government do. I will leave that to the Minister. I am acutely aware of the consequences of the Houthis taking control in Yemen and the impact it would have on the region. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that, particularly bearing in mind the views of other Members, who have said, particularly in the Chamber, that they do not support the Saudi Arabian Government’s position.

Iran supports not only Governments but other regimes, and it focuses its attention on non-state terrorist groups. Evidence has revealed that it has financed and equipped forces that have claimed the lives of UK special forces, including the Taliban in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda in Iraq. Senior Afghan general Brigadier General Mohiyadeen Ghori, commander of the 205th Corps stationed in Helmand, said in 2007 that Iran was funding insurgents in Garmsir district of Helmand, where several British soldiers died in heavy fighting.

British special forces in Afghanistan intercepted an Iranian shipment of rockets to the Taliban in March 2011. It included 48 122 mm rockets, which sources described as “substantial weapons”, with a range of more than 12 miles—double the range of the usual Taliban weapons. One thousand rounds of ammunition were also found in the convoy. Technical and intelligence examination involving British specialists revealed that the rockets had been manufactured recently and doctored to look as if they came from a third party, but they were proved to be of Iranian origin. Markings had been removed from most of the rockets, and they had a green fuse plug, supposedly unique to Iranian-made rockets. Our then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said that they were

“weapons clearly intended to provide the Taliban with the capability to kill Afghan and ISAF”

—international security assistance force—

“soldiers from significant range…The detailed technical analysis, together with the circumstances of the seizure, leave us in no doubt that the weaponry recovered came from Iran.”

In March 2010, Afghan border officials reported that a wide range of material made in Iran, including mortars, plastic explosives, propaganda materials and mobile phones, was ending up in the hands of Taliban insurgents. The US accused Iran in 2007 of supplying arms to Taliban insurgents after armour-piercing bombs were found in a vehicle in the western Afghan province of Farah. Iran has historically provided weapons, training and funding to other groups, including Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—General Command. Hamas is the Sunni Islamist organisation that is control of the Gaza strip. The UK designates its military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, as a terrorist organisation. The US, the EU, Australia, Canada, Jordan and Israel proscribe the entirety of the organisation—a move I have repeatedly asked the Government to make, and I do so again today. Hamas is a key terrorist proxy for Iran, and actively arms those groups via extensive smuggling routes throughout Africa and the middle east.

Diplomatic sources have informed Reuters that Iran gives Hamas a $250 million annual subsidy. Despite disagreements over Syria causing damage to the relationship, Iran continues to provide that funding. Hamas has publicly thanked Iran for the material and financial support. Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas’s co-founder, said:

“We have a right to take money and weapons from Iran. They give it to us for the sake of God, no conditions attached, and I am a witness to that.”

All that activity is possible because of the resources that have become available to the Iranian regime following the unfreezing of assets when the joint comprehensive plan of action was agreed. The lifting of sections released an estimated $100 billion and empowered Iran’s hard-liners to fund their regional hegemonic ambitions. There appear to be no mechanisms in place to stop the released funds from reaching Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and President Assad. Just a fraction of the $100 billion of sanction relief would be enough to triple the annual budget of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

My view of the Iranian regime is shared by many others. In February 2007, President Trump’s Administration imposed sanctions on Iran following a ballistic missile test. President Trump tweeted:

“Iran is playing with fire—they don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!”

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He mentioned the US Administration and the newly elected President Trump, but does he agree that we need to maximise security co-operation and share evidence and information between the US and the UK and right into Europe to try to prevent the travesty that he has outlined in relation to Iran?

[Dr Offord]

Once again, I agree with that point of view, but it is not for me to explain to the hon. Gentleman how that co-operation should occur; it is for the Government, who I believe are actively looking at such co-operation and seeking to keep our country safe.

John Smith, the acting sanctions chief of the US Treasury Department, said:

“Iran’s continued support for terrorism and development of its ballistic missile programme poses a threat to the region, to our partners worldwide and to the United States.”

In January, our Prime Minister affirmed the UK’s priority to

“reduce Iran’s malign influence in the Middle East”.

In an address to the Republican party conference in the United States, the Prime Minister said that the UK will

“support our allies in the Gulf States to push back against Iran’s aggressive efforts to build an arc of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean.”

She assured members of the Gulf Co-operation Council in December 2016 that she is

“clear-eyed about the threat that Iran poses to the Gulf and the wider Middle East”.

She emphasised that

“we must also work together to push back against Iran’s aggressive regional actions, whether in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Syria or in the Gulf itself.”

In February, the Middle East Minister, who is here today, said:

“The Government remains concerned about Iran’s destabilising activity in the region; we continue to encourage Iran to work constructively with its neighbours to resolve conflicts and promote stability.”

Also in February, Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, told delegates at the Munich security conference that Iran is the primary sponsor of international terror and the biggest threat to stability in the middle east. He said:

“Iran remains the single main sponsor of terrorism in the world. It’s determined to upend the order in the Middle East…until and unless Iran changes its behaviour it would be very difficult to deal with a country like this.”

He said that

“Iran is the only one in the Middle East that hasn’t been targeted by Islamic State and al-Qaeda,”

implying that there is a relationship between the regime and terror groups. He also said that the Iranians took advantage of the good will of the other nations that had negotiated the nuclear deal in 2015. He said that

“they stepped up the tempo of their mischief”

while the negotiations were taking place and continue to do so today. When the Israeli and Saudi Arabian Governments agree on something, I believe that the world should listen. The two countries are not renowned for agreeing on many things, but on Iran they certainly do.

There is no doubt about the malign role being played by the Iranian regime in the middle east. The failure of Barack Obama to take decisive action has emboldened the clerics. Now, this morning, is the time for us to renew our alliances and our interests with the US and others in the middle east to curtail that serpent.

[Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)]

As Members can clearly see, the debate is well subscribed, so with immediate effect, I am imposing a four-minute limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Sometimes he unfairly comes into the line of fire of criticism from myself and some of my colleagues, but it is certainly not him that we criticise—it is the issues that we discuss with him that we are critical of. I understand that his experience of terrorism is something that is not known to the rest of us; I deeply acknowledge that.

I thank everyone who has come to today’s debate. I apologise for my absence on a previous occasion, but I am grateful for the number of people who have come along. I am particularly grateful to you, Mr Nuttall, for advising me to give people enough opportunity to speak. I assure you that I could have spoken for longer, but I am grateful to have heard other people’s experiences. I also want to apologise to constituents of mine who are here today for some of my pronunciations.

Most of all, I thank the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), who spoke about Israel; my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who spoke about human rights in Iran; the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who spoke about human rights; my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who spoke about US influence; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who shared his concerns and spoke about human rights; my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who spoke about the relationship with the US; my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who spoke about terrorist funding; my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who not only suggested that I have this debate in the week of Nowruz but spoke about Christians in the country; and the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) for all that she said; I certainly take it to heart and hope that one day she and myself can go to Iran.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Yemen

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point: what is Iran’s involvement in Yemen? Is it helpful or is it hindering events? The Prime Minister made it clear that Iran can play a more constructive role in ensuring that weapons systems are not entering the country, that the Houthis are encouraged to come to the table, that the Red sea remains free of ships that may want to arm the Houthis, and that the port is opened. Those are the messages that we are asking Iran to recognise.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

There is no doubt that the conflict in Yemen is a war of proxies, and the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to criticise Saudi Arabia in the way that he did. However, there had been no mention of Iran until the previous question. The United Kingdom must take some responsibility for the continuing and escalating violence in Yemen, because if we had not agreed to the nuclear deal, the billions of pounds of resources would not have been able to enter this conflict and others in Syria, Lebanon and other parts of the middle east.

[Mr Ellwood]

The signing of the joint comprehensive plan of action represents an opportunity for Iran to take a more responsible role on the international stage. We know that it has an influence from Baghdad to Damascus to Beirut and, indeed, to Sana’a. We want Iran to step forward and recognise that it is in the region’s interests for it to be more secure and more prosperous. It should elevate itself and rejoin the international community, not continue to hinder the peace process right across the region.

Chagos Islands

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The right hon. Gentleman’s reference to the runway refers to only a very small part of the archipelago, where there are 58 islands. There is no obvious manner in which a few people on low-lying islands will be able to sustain themselves economically without outside help.

As for what the right hon. Gentleman describes as the runway, and hence implicitly Diego Garcia, the nature of the employment there did not prove attractive to those Chagossians who were consulted, because in most cases they are people who cannot take their families and work in a solitary manner, and they did not find the likely package of employment attractive. The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but that is the response that came through in the consultation.

On self-determination, the legal advice that we have received is that the Chagossians were not and are not a “people” for the purposes of international law and hence self-determination.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

There are many issues that we could raise in connection with the statement, and many of us did raise them on 25 October, when there was a Westminster Hall debate on the issue. At that time, I asked the Minister what the timeframe was for announcing his decision about the islands, and we were told that it would be announced before the end of the year. Does he accept how regrettable it is for many of us to have read the contents of the written ministerial statement in The Guardian on Tuesday night and how concerned we were, whether the written ministerial statement was published in this House or the other place, that it was published two hours before a long-standing meeting of the all-party parliamentary group to discuss the matter? Many of us feel that that was an affront to many Members. Will he undertake an investigation to determine how the statement ended up in a national newspaper, rather than here on the Floor of the House?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, although the Minister to whom he refers was not me. What I am doing today is repeating a statement that was made in another place. I hope and believe that the APPG was afforded proper respectful attention. I think that there were three Ministers there, properly explaining the policy. Quite how the matter got into The Guardian I do not know. All I can say is that that is not the natural paper for Her Majesty’s Government, and I therefore suspect that the sources probably lie elsewhere.

British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[James Duddridge]

I will try to give way in a second if I can.

On the main island, the military element of the island is not just a runway. There is space for tens of thousands of troops to be potentially deployed on hard standing. In the conservation area going up into the old town, the houses are falling apart. There is no real infrastructure there at all. I met British and American military there. During the whole of my trip I was with Americans and Brits. I am unequivocal as to the American position on a political and diplomatic level.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The former Minister is painting a wonderful picture for someone like me who would love to undertake such a journey. When he was a minster, a consultation was undertaken with members of the Chagossian community. The then Minister said on 12 April:

“I recognise that Chagossians have urged us to announce a decision soon, and we very much hope to do so.”—[Official Report, 12 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 171.]

Can he give us his recollection of that time and when he thought a decision would be made by the Foreign Office?

[James Duddridge]

I think the hon. Gentleman is citing a debate in this room. It was certainly not my intention that things would be left quite so far. We have had a change of Prime Minister and the focus has been elsewhere, but at that time we were waiting for the full consultation to complete. I also met other hon. Members, so I extended the consultation. There is a broader process; it is not simply one Minister making a decision.

The islands have a great use for prepositioned ships. I went on board one of the five prepositioned ships. They have five or six storeys—like multi-storey car parks—with the smallest vehicles being almost the width of this room. Two Afghanistan and Iraq style wars could be conducted for a month using those ships. They are absolutely essential to American, British and global security. Many other nations use that area.

I also met the Filipinos who worked there. They lived in not great accommodation, in what I would describe as a prefabricated hut with rooms on either side and a shared bathroom in the middle. Those cost contractors about £1 million to put in place for accommodation for two, because of the costs of getting all the equipment on to the island. I do not think we can underestimate the costs.

I also visited a hospital that was used by the Americans, the Brits and the Filipinos. Provision was basic, so anyone giving birth or experiencing complications needed to be flown off the island, and it was very difficult to move around the island.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

As I touched on, the work is on some of the economic opportunities that exist, lifestyles and the ability to provide the necessary support. We need further work to ensure that the proposal is viable. I think that it was mentioned in one of the earlier contributions that it is simply not enough just to find a solution to return those who want to go back; there needs to be a viable and sustainable community. The options need to be examined in more detail.

[Dr Offord]

I am very grateful to the Minister for setting out a time frame—he said he hoped to make an announcement by the end of the year. He will correct me if I am wrong, but did I understand that he just said that a quarter of the respondents to the consultation said that they did not want to go back? I ask because the House of Commons Library is under the impression that 89% of the 895 Chagossian respondents supported resettlement.

[Mr Ellwood]

If I may, I will get a more detailed report on the analysis that came back from the consultation and write to my hon. Friend so that he is fully appraised of the response to the consultation. However, the bottom line is that the details about how a resettlement would work in practice need to be pursued. We hope to make sure that that happens, but I will articulate to the Minister responsible that we want an answer and a report back to Parliament within the year.

Many hon. Members have stressed the strategic importance of the military location. Anybody with a military background is soon made aware of the significance of Diego Garcia and its role internationally for our allies, for NATO, for the United States and for Britain. The joint UK and US military facility on Diego Garcia contributes significantly towards global security—I cannot stress it any more than that. It is central to our operations, and to those of the United States and our international partners, to counter threats in the region, including terrorism and piracy. The continuing operation of the base is a key factor that we must take into account in our considerations.

One hon. Member asked about dual accounting in official development assistance and defence spending. I will make it very clear that there are occasions when military activity comes under the Ministry of Defence budget and qualifies for ODA activity. I complained about that when I visited Afghanistan and found that Britain was doing work in military training, mine clearance and so on, which is “ODA-able” but we were not charging for it. We were doing things that did not go towards that figure. It is very important to put into context that this is not a competition as such. Those who make the ODA rules—it is not us—recognise that certain minimal activities to do with stabilisation, reconstruction and peacekeeping can be paid for by military personnel. There are not many activities, but there are some.

Britain-Iran Relations

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) on securing the debate. I introduced a debate on human rights in Iran on 28 June. I do not intend to repeat all the issues that were raised then. Given the amount of time I have, I shall concentrate on two issues: the information that emerged over the summer about a massacre in 1988, and Iran’s regional aggression.

It has become known that, in 1988, the Iranian regime executed more than 30,000 people. Many of them were political prisoners held in jails. Some were people who had been released from jail, having served their sentence, but who were then summarily recalled and executed.

The majority were serving prison sentences for political activities or, as I said, had already finished their sentences. After a fatwa was issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, the wave of executions began in late July 1988 and continued for a few months. Many of those killed refused to repent their beliefs and as such were executed. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the regime in Tehran not only acknowledges what happened but takes action to ensure that those responsible, many of whom are still in power, are brought to justice? Will the Minister ask the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council to order an investigation to achieve that?

I turn to some issues that have arisen in the past 15 months, since the nuclear deal was agreed. I was very much against the deal. I was disappointed that the issue of human rights was decoupled from the deal, because that was a missed opportunity to put pressure on the Iranian regime. I think it was a vainglorious attempt by President Obama to secure a legacy—a legacy that will not actually be achieved. We have seen that with the number of people that Iran has continued to execute over the past 15 months. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) talked about abortion and what is and what is not normal. It is not normal to execute nine-year-old girls.

[Mr Bacon]

I did not say it was.

[Dr Offord]

I never suggested that my hon. Friend said it was, but I am saying that it is not normal to execute nine-year-old girls, or boys at the age of 15 or, indeed, to gouge out anyone’s eyes. It is not normal to execute people in the ways and numbers in which they are currently being executed in Iran. There has been much comment in the debate about the different sections of Iranian society that have been persecuted, including the Sunnis, the Kurds and the Baha’i. I received an email from the National Union of Journalists about its brothers and sisters in Iran who are not able to undertake their work as journalists and are not in a free civil society. I do not feel that that is normal either.

In July this year, the UK’s ambassador to the United Nations expressed his concern about Iran’s regional aggression, declaring that the ballistic missiles tested by Iran are designed to deliver nuclear weapons. In his speech to the UN Security Council, Ambassador Rycroft made it clear that Iran’s

“continued testing of ballistic missiles which are designed to be capable of carrying nuclear weapons is destabilising to regional security and inconsistent with Resolution 2231”,

as others have said already.

In the past 12 hours or so, there has been much comment in the media about the Foreign Secretary’s comments, in yesterday’s debate on Syria, about the role of Russia. But Russia is not the only game in town. Russia may have what we might call interests in—or may interfere in—Ukraine and Syria, but Iran interferes in and has much greater interests in other parts of the region. It interferes not only in Yemen, but in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. The tentacles from Tehran continue to spread. That has been allowed and achieved as a result of the nuclear deal unfreezing assets that the Revolutionary Guard and others are using to cause dissent in the region.

Forced Organ Removal: China

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. It is a privilege to be able to speak in this serious and important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it; he is a committed human rights activist in this place, and I thank him for giving us the opportunity to consider forced organ removal in China.

I hope it goes without saying that I condemn this reported practice in the strongest possible terms. I am certainly not the first Scottish National party politician to do so; my party colleague Bob Doris MSP is a long-standing campaigner on the issue. He has done a great deal to raise awareness, both over the previous parliamentary term and since the influx of new Members of the Scottish Parliament. Bob’s work has ensured that the Scottish Government continue to raise these human rights concerns when engaging with China. I put on record my gratitude to him for that. He is one of a number of politicians from all parties who have worked to raise awareness and encourage action. Many in this place, including the hon. Member for Strangford and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), also deserve recognition for their work.

The European Parliament and the US House of Representatives have both passed resolutions expressing concern over

“persistent and credible reports of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience”.

Those concerns are echoed by organisations such as Amnesty International and Tibet Truth. The conclusions reached in the report “Bloody Harvest”, updated and republished in June this year, make it clear why they deserve to be treated with the utmost seriousness. The report found:

“Organ transplantation volume in China is far larger than official Chinese government statistics indicate…The source for most of the massive volume of organs for transplants is the killing of innocents: Uyghurs, Tibetans, House Christians and”—

as we have heard today—

“primarily Falun Gong”.

It also called on all nations not to

“allow their citizens to go to China for organs until China has allowed a full investigation into organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience, both past and present.”

In a written answer to a parliamentary question recently tabled by the hon. Member for Strangford, the Foreign Office acknowledged that, although few British people are thought to travel overseas for such transplants,

“it is very difficult to prevent UK citizens travelling to less well-regulated countries”

to do so. When the Minister responds to the debate, perhaps he would care to elaborate on that, as well as on the various difficulties faced. What assessment has been made of any potential methods to restrict travel of that kind? I am sure he will also explain the diplomatic efforts to end the practice of forced organ removal in China. I would like to hear today an undertaking that such efforts will be stepped up. There are signs that the matter has fallen off the radar at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am pleased that this debate is taking place. It is not only interesting but informative. I pay tribute not only to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her fantastic report, which I have read.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the UK Government’s policy of speaking to the Chinese behind closed doors—or behind their hands, so to speak—has not worked? We now need to speak publicly about the human rights abuses that are occurring in China to make them seek to change how they treat their citizens.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is interesting that we hear about conversations going on behind closed doors not only with China but with other countries, because of certain difficulties. We have to be careful how we deal with countries such as China. We do a lot of trade with China and with some countries in the middle east that unfortunately have poor human rights records. If talking behind closed doors is not working, it is time to bring things into the public domain. I hope the Minister will take that on board.

Although the FCO’s 2014 corporate report into human rights in China noted that the country

“announced in December that it would cease harvesting organs from executed prisoners by 1 January 2015”,

there is simply no mention whatever of the practice in the 2016 report. Will the Minister commit to taking action to demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to tackling organ harvesting? Will he give an undertaking that the UK will make representations to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on efforts to investigate forced organ removal in China?

As we have heard, thousands of religious prisoners in China have had their livers, kidneys and corneas ripped out while they were still alive. It is absolutely horrific to think of that. Will the UK use its position to push at EU level for high-level European action to address the practice? Forced organ donation is abhorrent. It is a practice that makes a mockery of even the most fundamental and basic universal human rights. As journalist Ethan Gutmann stated:

“We acknowledge a terrible atrocity only after it’s over.”

We have to change that and always speak out against what we know in our hearts is fundamentally wrong.

In closing, I shall quote Dr Martin Luther King, who said:

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Dr King’s words ring as true today as when first spoken. If human rights are truly universal, we must uphold them everywhere, and challenge violations wherever they occur.

Human Rights in Iran

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights in Iran.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am very pleased that this debate was selected. I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss the alarming and deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, which has been overlooked recently. This is matter of great importance to many Members, and I am pleased that Members from all political parties in the United Kingdom are here this morning.

For the past two years, discussions about Iran have focused on the country’s clandestine nuclear programme and the international concern over its purpose. I regretted Her Majesty’s Government’s decision to decouple Iran’s human rights abuses and support for terrorism from the nuclear negotiations. I believe that that was a lost opportunity, and that doing so sent the wrong message to Iran.

Figures announced by Iran’s state media and verified by international non-governmental organisations reveal that more than 2,400 people, including many juveniles and women, have been executed in Iran under Rouhani’s three-year tenure. Last year alone there were 966 executions—the highest number in the past two decades. According to the UN special rapporteur for Iran, Dr Ahmed Shaheed, the number of executions was roughly double that of 2010, and 10 times that of 2005.

In July 2015, the deputy director of Amnesty International’s middle east and north Africa programme, Mr Said Boumedouha, said:

“Iran’s staggering execution toll…paints a sinister picture of the machinery of the state carrying out premeditated, judicially-sanctioned killings on a mass scale.”

Almost one year later, the Iranian authorities have maintained a horrifying execution rate that is nothing but state-sanctioned murder. There were 73 executions, including many public hangings, across Iranian cities in May. It is clear that no change can be expected; we should expect this horrific trend to continue.

Those figures show that Iran is not only the world’s No. 1 executioner per capita, but, according to a recent Amnesty International report, one of the few countries that continues to execute juvenile offenders, in blatant violation of the prohibition of the use of the death penalty against people under the age of 18 at the time of their supposed crime. Repressions of these contraventions are enforced by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its civic unit, the Basij force, with the active support and encouragement of the Rouhani Government. The law in Iran allows girls as young as nine to be executed for crimes or to be subjected to forced marriage to much older men. That is unacceptable by any international standard, and it is more worrying when one considers the barbaric punishments handed down by Iran’s judiciary. As Iran seeks greater integration with the international community, it is appropriate that we remember those harsh realities. Amnesty International said:

“The surge in executions reveals just how out of step Iran is with the rest of the world when it comes to the use of the death penalty—140 countries worldwide have now rejected its use in law or practice.”

Today, there are those who argue that those abuses are efforts by the hardliners in Iran who control the security organisations and the judiciary to undermine the moderate Rouhani’s reform-minded Government, who seek a more open relationship with the world. I reject that view. Such an assessment fails because it suggests that there are more powerful forces in Iran than the President, which, in turn, means that Rouhani’s position is merely symbolic and that he is thus incapable of initiating reforms. Most importantly, it ignores the fact that neither Rouhani nor his Government have ever publicly condemned and distanced themselves from executions and the use of public hanging. On the contrary, Rouhani has explicitly supported the use of the death penalty. In a speech in April 2004, he described executions as the enforcement of “God’s commandments” and

“laws of the parliament that belongs to the people.”

Those comments show that Rouhani’s views on executions and human rights abuses converge with those of the Supreme Leader and the judiciary. In addition, they expose the fact that there are no forces inside the current ruling theocracy that want to abolish the use of execution and arbitrary arrests. That comes as no surprise to many of us who recognise the real problems with Iran. One should remember that the notion of a moderate force emerging from within the regime is not a new phenomenon. That illusion emerged during the Khatami era in the late 1990s when a policy of appeasement with Tehran based on incentives and economic interests was proposed.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. What he is saying is backed up by what happened to Mr Mousavi in the green revolution. Although he was no great reformer, there were glimmers of hope, and they have been dashed. I think that that gentleman is still under house arrest.

[Dr Offord]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I pay tribute to the work that he undertakes on this important issue; he attends conferences in other parts of the country. He is correct to say that there have been people who were considered reformers, but whose efforts have been dashed and whose activities have been curtailed, and they have not been able to provide any kind of glimmer of hope. I will talk more about that later in my speech.

In the month after the nuclear deal, there was a wave of arbitrary arrests of human rights defenders, union activists, dissidents, journalists and dual citizens on bogus national security changes, based on propaganda. I will highlight three cases in which the victims received long prison sentences and are under severe pressure by the Iranian authorities in prison. Mr Saleh Kohandel was arrested in 2007 and sentenced to 10 years in prison for supporting Iran’s democratic opposition, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran. His crime was to support a vision of a free and democratic Iran, where torture and capital punishment is abolished. In a letter from the prison in May, Mr Kohandel wrote:

“My only crime, in their view, are my political activities, and for this reason I have on many occasions been transferred to the Ward run by the Intelligence Ministry and spent months under torture in solitary confinement.”

Another case of grave concern is that of Mr Jafar Azimzadeh, a labour activist who has been on hunger strike for nearly two months in Evin prison. He has been protesting against his unjust imprisonment and the suppression of ordinary workers, including the non-payment of their salaries. Mr Azimzadeh’s life is at serious risk, as his condition is deteriorating every day. Just last month, the judiciary in Iran sentenced the human rights defender, Ms Narges Mohammadi, to 16 years in prison. According to reports, she has been detained and denied her medication—a necessary treatment—as a means of torture.

Those three political prisoners and prisoners of conscience are at risk of losing their lives in prison if the international community does not intervene to secure their release. In fact, their condition is so serious that a group of UN human rights experts, including the UN special rapporteur on Iran, recently denounced the denial of adequate medical treatment to political prisoners as unacceptable. They said:

“The condition of several prisoners of conscience with serious health problems has been exacerbated by their continued detention and by repeated refusals to allow their access to the medical facilities and treatment they so urgently require.”

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very measured but highly compelling case. He is absolutely right to highlight the position of those who are, as he puts it, prisoners of conscience and political activists. For many in Iran, it is not necessary to challenge the state, other than to hold one’s own beliefs. I bring to his attention the position of the Baha’i community in Iran. In Golestan province, something in the region of 32 Baha’is have been arrested and sentenced collectively to 238 years’ imprisonment.

[Dr Offord]

I am very grateful for that intervention. I did not intend to cover that issue, but I am aware of it. I have received representations from the Baha’i community about the repression and human rights abuses that they face in Iran. I am covering a lot of issues as it is, so I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman put that on the record.

Those politically motivated arrests occurred in parallel with a series of arrests of women and youths for mal-veiling, posting indecent photographs on social media, and inciting and encouraging others to commit breaches of public decency. Such examples demonstrate the arbitrary character of charges against ordinary citizens in Iran, regardless of faith, which, together with the high number of executions, has no other purpose but to intimidate and to create an atmosphere of fear in society.

In January, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who has had a great deal of interaction with Iran, spoke in Davos about that, the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and, specifically, the effect on finance and resources of the lifting of sanctions:

“I think that some of it will end up in the hands of the IRGC or of other entities, some of which are labelled terrorists to some degree”.

The IRGC consists of the people who reinforce the law within the country, and many describe it as not only a revolutionary force but a direct arm of the state. That is of great concern, in particular given Rouhani’s remarks:

“The IRGC has always been a pioneer for solving the crises of the country. Today the IRGC is not only responsible for the country’s security, but also for the security of the countries that need Iran’s help, and it is courageously present in all those scenes”,

as I have described. Under the constitution, the IRGC and its various units are tasked with

“defending and exporting the Islamic Revolution”,

as defined by the ruling theocracy. Sadly, however, the IRGC is to be the main beneficiary of the billion dollars in sanctions relief promised to Tehran under last year’s nuclear deal.

On 8 May, in a speech to the members of the security forces, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei expressed fright about social discontent and the possibility of popular uprisings in the country, calling for further repressive measures—just as the IRGC were to receive more funds from the Rouhani Government under the current budget.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I pay tribute to his work in representing the Iranian community in north London.

Many of us were encouraged to support the lifting of sanctions in order to see a thaw in the repression of the regime. Given the acceleration in the use of the death penalty, the continued persecution of women and minorities, and the crushing of the opposition, however, does my hon. Friend agree that we have been duped?

[Dr Offord]

I am cautious about responding, because I believe that the Minister and the Government sought a solution with the best intentions. The Iranian Government did not comply with the agreement or take part in the negotiations in the same spirit, so I am reluctant to condemn the actions of my hon. Friend the Minister, who has worked hard on this—

[Mike Freer]

To clarify my point, our Government acted in good faith, but the Iranian Government did not.

[Dr Offord]

I certainly agree with that sentiment. As we have seen in previous negotiations with Mr Rouhani, he did not approach them in the same fashion as our own Government did.

Khamenei described security as a “high priority” for his country, saying that it demanded serious supervision by officials of the security forces, through the

“sound mind, acts and morals of the staff.”

He stressed

“providing social and moral security”

for the people. Given such realities, the Supreme Leader’s call for more repressive measures should alarm the British Government into reconsidering its policy towards Iran, especially on human rights. Many Iranian experts and human rights activists believe that the domestic repression is an integral part of the ruling theocracy and its ability to secure its grip on power. I and many of my colleagues in all parties in this House share that assessment.

All politics are local and when the regime carries out appalling atrocities such as public hangings and floggings on a systematic basis, it only alienates and angers the citizens. Surely every Iranian leader understands the benefits of stopping the executions and the boost that such a decision would have for their image globally. Yet the Iranian leaders refrain from such a constructive move and even step up the appalling atrocities, risking an outcry of international condemnation. Iranian leaders, including Rouhani, are shooting themselves in the foot—not because they like it, but because the survival of their theocratic system depends on those actions.

The simple conclusion is that the survival of the ruling theocracy puts Iran’s President and leaders in diametric opposition to the interests of millions of Iranians and, in particular, the two thirds of the population who are under 30, trying to overcome repression and dreaming of a free and open society. Our Government’s policy on Iran cannot ignore or underestimate those realities, as we have so far under previous Governments. To do so would have severe consequences for the Iranian people, the region and, by extension, our own interest in the region and the wider middle east.

I therefore welcome the Government’s serious concerns about Iran’s use of the death penalty, as highlighted in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s corporate report on Iran, published earlier this year. I am encouraged by the fact that the Government recognise that the human rights situation continues to be dire since Rouhani took office, and is worsening in many areas, which is in line with the findings of the United Nations special rapporteur on Iran, Dr Ahmed Shaheed.

I am also delighted that the Government decided to support the latest resolution on Iran in the UN General Assembly’s third committee, which criticised the systematic human rights violations in the country. In November last year, Baroness Anelay, in a statement following the resolution, said:

“Significant concerns remain about Iran’s clampdown on some of the fundamental freedoms of its citizens, including freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression, as well as the increasing number of executions.”

I have no doubt that the Government and the Minister will agree that the time for concrete and verifiable improvements in Iran, especially on human rights, is long overdue. We want to see such improvements achieved by the Iranian people, because they would be in our interest. On that issue, we are on the same page and, I suspect, many colleagues will concur with Baroness Anelay that it is time for words to be translated into actions. As such, the UK, given its permanent status on the UN Security Council and its strong voice at the UN Human Rights Council can and should take the lead on the international scene in order to secure the concrete actions called for by the FCO with regards to advancing and promoting human rights in Iran.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, in particular on the lifting of sanctions. Is it not the case, however, that in reflecting the obsession with nuclear arms, we have lifted sanctions against providing funding for the IRGC while gaining nothing in return on human rights? The western world has been made to look very stupid. There is a fine irony in providing funds for the IRGC while criticising and contesting the legitimate claims of the National Council of Resistance of Iran and of the People’s Mujahedin Organisation of Iran, both of which are working towards democracy.

[Dr Offord]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with regard to this cause. As I said, I regret the decision of our Government and of overseas Governments, including that of the United States, to decouple the issues of human rights abuses and Iran’s support for terrorism from the nuclear negotiations. I remain concerned in particular about the funding of the IRGC and, indeed, where such funding is then heading. Many of us are aware of IRGC funding activities in support of terrorism in countries such as Syria and Lebanon. That remains a huge concern for the overall peace and security of the middle east. I very much concur with my hon. Friend. I have to say that the present President of the United States was keen to gain a nuclear deal at any cost. I also agree with the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who said it would be better to have “no deal”, rather than “any deal”.

Another major concern for many Iranians and, in particular, for many of my constituents are the crimes committed against the residents of Camp Liberty—formerly Camp Ashraf—who have suffered seven deadly attacks. On 29 October 2015, Camp Liberty, north of Baghdad airport and the place of residence of Iranian refugees, was attacked by at least 80 missiles, launched by the Iranian regime’s agents. Twenty-four residents lost their lives, and a large section of the camp was destroyed. I am grateful to the Minister, and I wish to place my gratitude on the record: I contacted him after that outrage, and he reassured me that he would provide assistance wherever possible. Camp Liberty remains a great concern for many of my constituents, who have relatives and friends in the camp. The issue of the camp is tied to human rights abuses in Iran, and it is also an international tragedy. The international community should take more action.

In my conclusion, I would like to make the following recommendations to the Government—I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how we can help them to implement and promote policy recommendations. First, the UK should publicly name and shame those Iranian leaders who are known to be responsible for the ongoing atrocities and human rights abuses in Iran and impose punitive measures against those leaders and institutions, such as the IRGC and the Supreme Leader. Those people are committing and encouraging repressive policies.

Secondly, the UK should bring Iran’s appalling human rights dossier to the UN Security Council for a review so that Iranian leaders committing heinous atrocities can be prosecuted in international tribunals. That is particularly important, because that establishes justice for the millions of people who are victims of the regime’s repression in Iran and reminds the Iranian authorities that they cannot blatantly ignore the recommendations of the UN resolutions—their actions include banning the UN special rapporteur for Iran from visiting that country—without consequences.

Thirdly, the UK Government should make relations with Iran contingent on concrete and verifiable improvements on human rights in the country, including but not limited to an immediate halt of executions, torture and arbitrary arrests, and the release of all political prisoners. Fourthly, the safety and protection of Camp Liberty residents must be guaranteed until they all depart from Iraq, and there should be support for host countries—especially Albania—in making their relocation possible.

The message to the Iranian regime should be simple: the UK stands with the millions of Iranians who want their Government to act in a civilised manner, not to be a backward-striving theocracy that survives on repression, barbaric punishment and terrorism. I and many of my colleagues from both Houses of Parliament have on many occasions urged the Government to recognise and support Iranian dissidents and activists who are advocating a free and democratic Iran. Those individuals struggle against the current theocratic regime in Iran, despite enormous personal sacrifices and threats to their lives, to establish an Iran where capital punishment, torture and persecution are abolished and prohibited by law. I am grateful to those who have come to the Public Gallery to listen to the debate and who play an active part in that. I pay tribute to them.

[Sir Roger Gale]

Sir Edward, you have been—and I trust will be again—a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, so you will know as I do that the People’s Mujahedin of Iran leader, Maryam Rajavi, has appeared at the Council of Europe on many occasions. At present, she is not allowed to meet here in London with FCO representatives. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very helpful indeed if the FCO were to agree to meet Maryam Rajavi here in London, to hear what she has to say?

[Dr Offord]

Sir Edward, you must think that this debate has been co-ordinated because some contributions from other Members have been on issues that I have not touched on but certainly agree with. I would welcome the FCO lifting the ban on Maryam Rajavi to enable her to come to this country, explain her position and illustrate what measures can be taken to promote peace and security in Iran.

In fact, I will go on to Maryam Rajavi’s 10-point plan and its benefits. As my hon. Friend said, Mrs Rajavi presented her plan at the Council of Europe in 2006, which is a time I am sure you will remember, Sir Edward. I would be surprised if any Member of this House or the other House could find any point that they would object to in that plan, which, most of all, includes supporting the commitment to abolish the death penalty, which we all agree with. It also supports complete gender equality in political and social rights and specifically a commitment to equal participation of women in political leadership. Any form of discrimination against women would be abolished and women would enjoy the right to choose their clothing freely. It also includes a modern legal system based on the principles of presumption of innocence, the right to defence and the right to be tried in a public court, the total independence of judges and the ending of cruel and degrading punishments.

Those are just three of the points in the 10-point plan and I will not test the patience of the House by going through them all, but I have no doubt that the Minister, and indeed the Government, want to see those values established and promoted in Iran and the wider middle east. Failure to put Iran’s human rights abuses and support for terrorism at the centre of our Iranian policy will only harm our interests in the region and destroy our reputation, simply because such a policy will project weakness and advance the terms dictated by the regime in Tehran. I hope that, following this debate on human rights, we will play our part in ensuring that we help and support the Iranian people to establish these democratic values and principles in their country sooner rather than later. I dare to say that such a policy that backs the Iranian people and their democratic aspirations will have strong support from both Houses, the Iranian people and the Iranian diaspora.

Iran: Nuclear Issues

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Many Members on both sides of the House continue to have concerns about the Iranian nuclear deal. We have debated the issue on several occasions in Westminster Hall, and I remain disappointed that the opportunity to debate the full deal in Government time has never been afforded to the House. Back in June, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said:

“I would certainly ask the Backbench Business Committee to make time for it to be debated on the Floor of the House as well as in Westminster Hall.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 21WH.]

Unfortunately, that has not occurred. The Secretary of State did make a statement to the House in July, but limited time prevented a debate on the merits of agreeing to the deal. I do not intend to open up that discussion again, but I want to ask the Minister to clarify what the Government are seeking to achieve through this evening’s motion, and what the possible impacts might be on the middle east region.

The motion tonight is rather convoluted and requires the casual observer to undertake some research to determine what each of the EU Council decisions and subsequent amendments refer to. In the round, they seek to remove sanctions on transactions regarding foodstuffs, healthcare, medical equipment, equipment for agricultural or humanitarian purposes below €1 million, as well as transfers of personal remittances below €400,000. In addition, the motion is about suspending restrictive measures concerning the prohibition on the provision of insurance, reinsurance and transport for Iranian crude oil; the prohibition on the import, purchase or transport of Iranian petrochemical products and on the provision of related services; and the prohibition on trade in gold and precious metals with the Government of Iran, its public bodies and the Central Bank of Iran, or persons and entities acting on their behalf.

It is fair and rational to ask who will be the main beneficiary of the lifting of these sanctions. Surprisingly, it might not be the Iranian Government themselves but one individual, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, through his direct control of one of the most powerful and secretive organisations in Iran, the Setad Ejraiye Farmane Hazrate Emam, or Setad.

Setad has become one of the most powerful organisations in Iran, although many Iranians, and indeed many in the wider world, know little about it. In the past six years, it has morphed into a business juggernaut that holds stakes in nearly every sector of Iranian industry, including finance, oil, telecommunications, the production of birth-control pills and even ostrich farming. The organisation’s total worth is difficult to pinpoint because of the secrecy of its accounts, but Setad’s holdings of real estate, corporate stakes and other assets total about £60 billion, according to Reuters. That estimate is based on an analysis of statements by Setad officials, data from the Tehran stock exchange and company websites, and information from the US Treasury Department.

The motion seeks to remove secondary sanctions on Setad and about 40 firms it owns or has a stake in, which will have a huge impact on events in the middle east. The de-listing of Setad has no direct connection to Iran’s nuclear programme, but its significance is in the company’s relationship to Iran’s ruling elite. The company has interests in almost every sector of Iran’s economy. It built its corporation on the systematic seizure of thousands of properties belonging to religious minorities, business people and Iranians living abroad—we have seen that in the history. Iranians who said their family properties were seized by Setad described in interviews in 2013 how men showed up and threatened to use violence against them if the owners did not leave the premises at once. Although there may be no evidence that Khamenei is personally enriched by Setad’s assets, it is through Setad that Khamenei has access to resources that allow him to bypass rivals and other branches of government.

The nuclear deal, reached in Vienna in July, allows the conglomerate to open bank accounts abroad and procure financing for partnerships. Secondary sanctions have previously prevented foreign banks that wish to operate in the United States and the UK from dealing with Setad. Although most of Setad’s holdings are in Iran, it has some global reach. The Setad-linked entities being removed from US and UK secondary sanctions include firms based in South Africa and Germany. Already, one Setad firm appears to be moving to take advantage of the changes; the Ghadir Investment Company, which the US Treasury identified as a Setad-linked firm, signed a €500 million contract with the engineering unit of Finmeccanica in Italy, as a spokesman confirmed in August.

The even more troubling aspect of the motion is who operates Setad and the other companies that will benefit from sanctions relief. Some have said that the people of Iran will benefit from that relief, but I disagree. It has been claimed in the media that the Iranian revolutionary guard corps, a branch of Iran’s military accused of funnelling arms and other support to Hezbollah and President Assad of Syria, has placed top commanders at the heart of more than 200 Iranian companies. Backers of the nuclear deal have argued that sanctions relief and renewed access to $150 billion in frozen assets will not benefit the revolutionary guard in its support of terrorist organisations in the region because restrictions remain in place against Hezbollah and Hamas. Such a view is not shared by others, including me.

A US think-tank, the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, says that some 229 Iranian companies have board members or shareholders belonging to the revolutionary guard, which also has links to President Assad. The FDD claims that the revolutionary guard either controls or holds shares in 14 companies listed on the Iranian stock exchange, with a combined economic worth of $17 billion. That is in addition to other companies, such as the construction corporation Khatam al-Anbiya, which has secured more than $20 billion in Government contracts and is believed to be the biggest private-sector company in Iran.

Earlier this month, Barack Obama said that the nuclear deal would result in more funding for the Iranian revolutionary guard, but that the alternative was war. He said:

“We have no illusions about the Iranian government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organisations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies—including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.”

We all agree with the words of the Prime Minister in the House only yesterday, when he made the following clear and concise point:

“In ensuring our national security, we will also protect our economic security.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1049.]

He meant here in this country. The Prime Minister is absolutely right that by protecting the United Kingdom’s economic security we can protect our country. It is my belief that by maintaining sanctions on the Iranian economy, we can prevent resources being fed into the conflict in Syria and other countries in the middle east. I urge the Minister tonight to follow the money ansd see where it takes him.

Famagusta

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing the debate. As he said, it is extremely timely, given that six of my colleagues and I travelled to the divided island of Cyprus only last week. It was not my first visit, and, indeed, it was not the first time that I had crossed the border and entered the occupied territory, but it was my first opportunity to travel to Famagusta.

I could speak about many issues that arose during that trip. I could speak about our encounter with the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus—which people found very moving—about stolen artefacts, or about access to property or land. However, I want to make just two points. First, I want to describe my observation of a situation on the island which I found truly inexplicable. Secondly, I want to talk about the effect of the huge military presence in the occupied zone.

Let me begin by talking about the beaches, particularly those in Famagusta. To witness what I can only describe as a ghost town, frozen in time, would be interesting if it did not affect so many people in the here and now. Many people are unable to visit the graves of their relatives or friends, access their properties or businesses, or even visit their own beaches without harassment.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

There are 371 people—mostly conscripts from this country—buried in Wayne’s Keep. We must ensure that we have access to that graveyard and look after it. Those men were killed mainly by Greek Cypriot terrorist fighters, and we must not forget that.

[Dr Offord]

My hon. Friend is right. As the record shows, I have asked parliamentary questions about the issue, because we have our own graves in that country. I shall not open a debate about the historical aspects of the island—we realise that there are many sides to all the stories that we can tell—but we are very concerned about the graves of all the people on the island, be they Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots or British service personnel who died and were buried there.

I can name some of the people who have been affected. These are not names that I have plucked out of the air. There is Maria, who was formerly a regular visitor to the beach; there is Antonis, who is denied access to his grandfather’s property; and there is Costas, who is unable to visit the King George hotel, where his father worked for more than 30 years. Those are all real people with stories to tell. Owing to the behaviour of the authorities, which we experienced, I shall not reveal their surnames, because I fear that there would be further repercussions against them.

What I found striking about Famagusta was not just the sight of hundreds of residential and commercial properties lying empty, but the simple issue of access to the beach. I think that my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Byron Davies), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) will relate to this, given that they have coastal constituencies.

Walking along the sand in Famagusta means having to enter a contested area, alongside the overbearing corrugated iron and barbed-wire fences which enclose the tower blocks that surround the beach and give it the air of a militarised zone. This barrier extends across and alongside the beach until it meets the curvature of the water’s edge and then enters the sea, preventing anyone from moving along the coast. Both that and the mines in the sea ensure that there is no access. To someone who grew up on a beach—literally—I would find that very difficult to explain. Even if someone could navigate that, the military presence in the watchtower will shout at them to get away from the fence and certainly not to take any pictures. I wonder whether the Turkish authorities are embarrassed by that sight. I leave it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other Members in the Chamber to decide whether that is so; I certainly think that it is.

In an attempt to intimidate us even further, the Turkish authorities had another security presence on the beach. He was quite a peculiar person, in his own shorts and with comb-over long grey hair. He marched around the beach at great pace, walking closely by us to intimidate and to see what we were doing, and all the time we could hear the Turkish border guards shouting at him through his earpiece at the top of their voices. It was one of the most peculiar scenes I have ever seen.

It is not just the environment in Famagusta that has been physically manipulated by the Turkish forces; so, too, have the people who have been relocated from mainland Turkey—the settlers, known as the Türkiyeli. Northern Cyprus’s first official census performed in 1996 showed that there were more than 200,000 people in the occupied territory. A decade later that had increased by 65,000. A third census was carried out by the United Nations in 2011, and it recorded a population of over 294,000, but these results have been disputed by many political parties, trade unions and indeed local newspapers. Accusations of under-counting were made because the TNRC—Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—had said to Turkey that there were more than 700,000 people in the occupied territory in order to gain access to greater funds. What we do know as a fact is that over 50% of the people who come from the mainland have no common heritage or culture with the indigenous Turkish or Cypriot people.

We often hear in this Chamber—I am sure the Minister has heard me say it to him many times—about the settlements in Israel and how they are illegal under international law. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are glad that I will not be opening up that debate, but I never hear criticism of Turkey for doing the same thing, yet its actions are a clear breach of the fourth Geneva convention. Article 49 makes it clear that an occupying power may not forcibly deport protected persons or deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into occupied territory. Turkey has done this; Turkey has clearly breached this convention and there can be no dispute that immigration to the occupied territory is unlawful.

What is not disputed is the number of Turkish troops in the north. In 2013 the Cyprus Center for Strategic Studies estimated that 74,000 troops were based in the occupied territory in Cyprus, an area of 1,295 square miles. To put that into context, in April the UK had 87,060 Army service personnel and we have a land mass of 83,700 square miles. The contrast is obvious and illustrates Turkey’s determination to maintain its military presence in Cyprus.

Indeed, on Saturday we witnessed the over-the-top display of soldiers, trucks and howitzers as traffic was stopped to allow army personnel to travel through Famagusta. It was clear that this was purely a public display of weaponry designed to do little more than intimidate the indigenous Turkish and Cypriot population into not seeking the removal of the Turkish army in the occupied territory.

The European Parliament has repeatedly voiced its support for the return of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants. The resettlement of Varosha and Famagusta on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions would have a positive effect in seeking a comprehensive, viable solution to the Cyprus problem, as it would create a tangible example of co-operation and coexistence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots on the island and serve as a symbol of future harmony and prosperity.

Famagusta may be a forbidden, occupied town in Cyprus, but it will never be a forgotten community among its lawful inhabitants and its friends in this place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir David Amess]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, but it was explained to us that there is a difficulty, in that some of the burial grounds are now under multi-storey buildings such as housing developments. It is therefore not quite so straightforward as we might hope.

[Dr Offord]

May I remind my hon. Friend that finding the bones is also complicated by the fact that some have been dispersed by wild animals, some have been washed away and some have been bleached by the sun? Those that have been bleached in that way often lose their DNA.

[Sir David Amess]

I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fact. The experts are doing a fantastic job, but there is a limit to how far they can go.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon also mentioned the graves. I was shocked and horrified to see that many of the Greek Cypriot graves had been totally vandalised, with their crosses broken up and the ground dug up by people searching for riches like those the Egyptians used to have. However, the Turkish graves, just opposite, were kept in magnificent order, and all through European Union funding. It is an absolute scandal. It is an insult, and the House would be well directed to find out more information about this. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate tried to get a group of volunteers to go over there to do something about the graves. This is a relatively small matter which, given the will to do it, could be put right very quickly. The lady who took us to see where her loved ones were buried broke down in our arms, and my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall comforted her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

Yes, of course, it takes two parties—two to tango, as it were. Both sides must be willing to come to an agreement.

[Dr Offord]

Although there is some history of Turkish troops invading the island, that was 36 years ago. It is time for them to go now. Even their behaviour on our visit, when we were followed by security forces who photographed us, sought our names and determined when we were leaving and what we were doing, shows that the Turkish Government have not really changed.

[Martin Vickers]

Yes, there was a slightly sinister feel to some parts of our trip as a result of being followed and photographed by the Turkish authorities.