Dog Meat Trade

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I support the motion and congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). He won the Westminster dog of the year last year with his German shepherd, Diesel. I was rather concerned that my own Jack Russell, Maximus, was going to become his dog snacks, so I kept the two dogs well apart.

I certainly agree with the sentiment here. I support the motion not as someone who has been a vegetarian for almost 35 years, but because I believe strongly in animal welfare. I also urge the hon. Gentleman to be careful about the cultural issues. It has already been mentioned that we should not take the ideological imperialistic approach of telling people what they should and should not eat; dog has been eaten in countries including China for the last 500 years, and we have to be very careful in our approach.

Back in September, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), said:

“There are no international norms, laws or agreements governing the trade and consumption of dog and cat meat. Instead we seek to work with governments around the world to gain agreement to animal welfare standards and to phase out cruel and inhumane farming and trapping practices. Ministers have raised this issue with Chinese counterparts and explained that UK Parliamentarians and the public want to see regulation that would bring the practice to an end. Our Ambassador in Seoul has delivered similar messages to South Korean authorities. Our officials will continue to highlight our concerns.”

I would certainly expect our Government to continue that dialogue with those countries.

China and South Korea are not the only countries that engage in this kind of activity, however. In the Cayman Islands, for example, there is a turtle farm where turtles are bred for human consumption, even though they are an endangered species. I pay tribute to World Animal Protection for its campaign to stop that practice. Of course, the Chinese authorities could easily turn round and ask us why we glorify programmes such as “I’m a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here”, in which people eat turkey testicles, fish eyes, live witchetty grubs and parts of the anatomy of kangaroos and ostriches that I am not even going to mention on the Floor of the House. To me, that is also repugnant.

My point is that we in the UK have a different relationship with animals. I am sure that you have seen “Pulp Fiction”, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the film, Vincent and Jules have a conversation about why Jules does not eat bacon. He says that it is a filthy animal that eats its own faeces. Vincent then asks him whether he would consider a dog a filthy animal, because they too eat their own faeces. Jules replies:

“I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy, but it’s definitely dirty. But dogs got personality, personality goes a long way.”

That is the crux of our relationship with animals in this country. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South and I are both dog owners, and we have a completely different relationship with our dogs. Such relationships with dogs do not exist in China. There have been severe food shortages there for the past 500 years, but the country has overcome famine and continued to feed its population.

As I have said, I am a vegetarian, but I strongly believe in the right of people in this country to eat meat. That is because of the high animal welfare standards we have here. I would like to see such standards being applied across the whole world—and yes, I would like to see this practice banned. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to the House today. I also congratulate the animal welfare charities involved in this campaign, including Soi Dog, whose valuable work one of my constituents has drawn to my attention.

I would also like to see the Government working to ensure that the emergence of a middle class in countries such as China, alongside the growth of social media, can promote an atmosphere in which people start to reject the consumption of dog meat, either as a delicacy or for people who cannot afford more expensive meat, so that this vile practice can be brought to an end.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I did not say that; what I said was that we are aligned in our view of ISIL as an existential challenge that needs to be dealt with. We do not agree on everything and we will not agree on everything, but where we do agree we can work together, and that is the important thing.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Given the clandestine history of the Iranian nuclear programme, particularly in regard to the Fordow and Natanz facilities, one of which is constructed under a mountain, what reassurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that Iran will not clandestinely continue to seek a bomb?

UN Independent Commission of Inquiry (Gaza)

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on securing this debate, but what a disappointment it has proven to be. We listened in silence to some of the views expressed by Opposition Members; it is greatly disappointing that some people could not do the same when my colleagues on the Government Benches made speeches.

We should bear in mind that the UN has a long history of criticising Israel, more than it has any other country in the world—so much so that many of us feel that its criticisms are no longer legitimate. In 2004, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 resolutions singling out Israel for criticism, but only three for the rest of the world combined. The Human Rights Council’s members include Qatar and Saudi Arabia—countries that perform human rights violations against their own people. We know that those things happen.

Only last year, the Prime Minister made three points about the UN. First, he wanted to see

“an end to the outrageous lectures on human rights that Israel receives at the United Nations from the likes of Iran and North Korea”.

I certainly agree with that. Secondly, he wanted.

“an end to the ridiculous situation where last year the United Nations General Assembly passed 3 times as many resolutions on Israel as on Syria, Iran and North Korea put together”.

Thirdly, he wanted to see.

“no more excuses for the 32 countries in the United Nations who refuse to recognise Israel”.

Israel has a right to exist. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, it is constantly under attack—that seems to be forgotten by the UN Human Rights Council and some Members here this afternoon. It is a great disappointment that we do not have more time to debate this issue, but I urge Members to listen to people from both sides of the situation. As my hon. Friend said, none of us rejoices in the deaths of any human being, but to claim that any country kills people as a result of the holocaust is not only despicable and disgusting, but disrespectful to the House.

Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this debate.

This is not the first time we have discussed this issue in Westminster Hall. On 26 February 2014, I initiated a debate on the interim agreement with Iran, so it is hard not to repeat oneself; indeed, many hon. Members have already outlined many of the issues of concern. I have therefore decided to approach the matter from a completely different point of view: the environmental implications of a nuclear Iran. The Iranian regime has announced that it is interested in the construction of nuclear technology only for energy consumption and that a civilian nuclear Iran seeks such capability only for peaceful uses but, in this age of environmental sustainability and renewables, it strikes me as perverse that such a claim is being made to justify a nuclear programme in the middle east.

Iran is rich in its natural supply of minerals, oil and gas, and there is an abundance of possibilities in the country to produce renewable energy from the wind and sun. The opportunities are infinite, as the production of energy from such natural resources is not only cheaper but much safer for the environment. Iran can secure not only its domestic but possibly the regional energy supply, without resorting to nuclear technology.

We have only to look at the country’s existing nuclear facilities to consider how safe such an expanded nuclear industry would be. A good example is the Bushehr nuclear plant, which lies on the coast of the Persian gulf, south of Tehran. There have been huge safety concerns about the plant, associated with its construction, its ageing equipment and under-staffing. The Centre for Energy and Security Studies, an independent Russian think tank, explained the construction delays at the plant as due partly to a

“shortage of skilled Russian engineering and construction specialists with suitable experience”.

In 2010, the International Atomic Energy Agency noted that the facility was under-staffed. It is clear that Iran does not have the human capacity for a nuclear industry.

Leaders from Gulf Co-operation Council countries have expressed fears that a serious nuclear accident at the Bushehr plant would spread radiation throughout the region. Bushehr is closer to the six Arab capitals of Kuwait City, Riyadh, Manama, Doha, Abu Dhabi and Muscat than it is to Tehran. The United States Geological Survey and NASA say the plant is near the boundary of the Arabian and Eurasian tectonic plates. The Bushehr plant could be the next Chernobyl or Fukushima, with the potential to contaminate vast swathes of the middle east in the event of an explosion.

Iran’s wants to acquire nuclear technology not so that it can match the technological achievements of the west; we all know that it is an overt attempt to challenge the military capabilities of other countries and to establish itself as a presence in the geopolitics of the middle east.

[Mr Bacon]

Given that, apart from Egypt, Iran is probably the most populous country in the middle east and given its strategic position occupying one entire side of the Gulf, does it surprise my hon. Friend that it might want to have an important role in the strategic geopolitics of the region?

[Dr Offord]

It does not surprise me, but I worry about Iran’s intentions in such a role. I will come on to that shortly.

The nuclear programme has many attractions for the Iranian president and the supreme leader. Internally, it increases self-confidence in elements of the regime’s core supporters, such as the revolutionary guards and the Quds and Popular Mobilisation forces. Externally, it boosts the regime’s prestige in the eyes of fundamentalist militant sympathisers such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza—so yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that Iran wants prestige and influence. The nuclear programme can also be used for the blackmail of regional countries by raising the threat of a localised nuclear attack. It allows Iran to become a dominant voice in the Persian gulf and could ensure its ascendancy in the global community as it seeks to cajole and influence. Most of all, it can be used as a tool to sabotage the middle east peace process and give advantage to Iran to dictate the terms and destabilise order in the region, especially in countries such as Israel.

The proposed deal makes no reference to Iran’s role as leading sponsor of state terrorism, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti). While negotiations were ongoing in Switzerland, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels were seizing control of the Yemeni capital, and Iran was extending its presence in Iraq and attempting to establish a new front in the Golan Heights in co-ordination with the terror group Hezbollah. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon): Iran is seeking to exert influence.

The Iranian regime is known to provide financial and material support to extremist Islamist terrorist organisations in the middle east, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. It reportedly provides Hezbollah with up to $200 million a year and spends up to $35 billion to prop up the Assad regime. Between 2006 and 2011, it financed Hamas with up to $300 million annually. Iran actively sponsors international terrorist groups that are committed to the destruction of Israel and act as Iran’s proxies.

It is not just me who has concerns about the Iranian regime and its attempt to attain a nuclear weapon. The IAEA, the UN Security Council and many western countries have long-standing concerns. In November 2014, the IAEA director general called on Iran to

“increase its co-operation with the agency and to provide timely access to all relevant information, documentation, sites, material and personnel”.

Iran does not act in any way to allay the fear of us sceptics. It has repeatedly denied IAEA inspectors access to key nuclear sites, including at Parchin, where it is believed to have conducted tests involving triggers for nuclear weapons. Our concerns are legitimate. Iran needs to demonstrate the exclusively peaceful, civilian nature of its nuclear programme and intentions before it can possibly be considered a normal, non-nuclear-weapons state. It will not do that though, so I remain highly concerned about the deal, like other Members present.

The verification programme is not enough, and Iran’s failure to address the potential military dimensions to its nuclear programme undermines the IAEA’s ability to verify the programme and accurately calculate its breakout time. Iran needs to make concrete progress on the disclosure of its weaponisation activities prior to receiving sanctions relief, because an agreement that ignores Iran’s past weaponisation work would risk being unverifiable. Until such issues are resolved, I appeal to the Minister, as I did to the Prime Minister in the House, not to enable Iran to become a nuclear power. We should be wary of its intentions. As I said to the Prime Minister, the road between a civilian nuclear Iran and a military nuclear Iran is a short one. I repeat the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who said that it would be better to have no deal than a bad deal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

There has been a discussion between the Ukrainian Government and ourselves and a number of other European Governments and the United States about various types of assistance, including non-lethal military assistance, and there was agreement among those different allied Governments to supply help to Ukraine. We think that the training will enable the Ukrainian army to operate more effectively than it has been able to do up until now, and that that offer of training would have been justified irrespective of the Russian intervention in the east.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Recent reports emerging from Iran say the regime has been secretly enriching uranium since 2008 at an underground plant in suburban Tehran named as Lavizan-3. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of this concerning news, and does he agree that no deal should be signed with Iran until the International Atomic Energy Agency has unfettered access to all the nuclear programme?

Palestine

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Burt]

There is a need for bravery at some stage and courage among the leaders to do things and face off their own people. Sooner or later they have to do that. Who knows whether unilateral action taken in concert with each other might be part of that. I do not know. Until the leaders are prepared to break the deadlock, we will get nowhere.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Alistair Burt]

No, I will not, because I have had two interventions and I want to conclude. The debate is about what the UK should do, which all colleagues have addressed. The first thing is to never give up. A former Israeli Prime Minister told me a couple of weeks ago that a two-state solution is not a gift from Israel to the Palestinians; it is Israel’s security. The UK should therefore remain solidly behind efforts to restart direct talks and pull no punches with either state about the need for urgency. It should remain unequivocally for a two-state solution and be increasingly sharp with those whose actions and words tend against it. The status quo will not hold. It is not a problem to be managed; it must be concluded.

Secondly, the UK should urge Arab states, which currently need a revival of this issue as an acute item on their agenda like a hole in the head and which fear the possibility of its being used as a recruiter for jihad, to press heavily on the Palestinians. Although there has been some criticism of Israel for the failure of this year’s talks, President Abbas played his part, too. Hamas must end the war, and it must find no justification or support for its current position, but Israel should recognise the reality of the impact of this summer’s attacks on Gaza, whatever the justification, and ensure that there is no repeat.

Finally, despite provocation and despite the UK being urged to do even more, we should recognise the reality of our position. We are a supporter, including financially, of the development of a Palestinian state and friend of the security of the state of Israel. We must constantly encourage both and avoid making things worse by precipitate action or extreme statements.

However, the UK Parliament is entitled to take positions that it believes protect the two-state solution or signal its belief in doing so. I did not support the recent motion, as I still believe in and support the UK Government’s position that recognition should come at the end of negotiations, but the vote deserved to be taken seriously. Reactions in Israel were instructive, with the Government of the state of Israel mostly reflective, but with one or two Ministers lurching in the wrong direction and suggesting that vote supported terrorism. It did not. As David Aaronovitch recently said in The Jewish Chronicle, he might have voted for the motion himself, because it at least keeps the two-state solution alive—wise words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

There are people in this Chamber who know far more than I do about the history of the part of the world we are debating, but I have read a few books and listened carefully to what everyone says, and I can guarantee one thing: the history of that conflicted part of the world does not mean that we can blame one side for all the ills that have taken place there over the years. There will be a lot of pain for both sides in moving towards a two-state solution, but almost everyone who has contributed to today’s debate recognises that that is what is required.

There are those who argue for a one-state solution. Let us be honest: there are those who argue for a greater Israel, but there are also those who argue for a greater Palestine. I have heard people who are in the Chamber today say, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” We know what that means, as well. A single state cannot bring peace, as it would ultimately undermine the national goals of one of the two competing national movements. Two states for two peoples is the only realistic hope.

The deadlock and the conditions that have existed for years are not the only obstacles to peace, but they guarantee that with each passing year the problem becomes more difficult to resolve, with more settlements, more refugees, more people drawn to terror, more victims, more resentment and more hate. Hon. Members should be assured that I condemn Israeli settlements in the west bank and the blockade of Gaza, and I believe the Israelis should end the occupation. The lurch to the right in Israeli politics makes that aim more difficult to achieve, but does not make it impossible.

I do not need to be prompted to say that, with the same vigour, passion and determination, I condemn Hamas, whose unrevoked 1988 charter rejects peace and promotes the killing of Jews. I condemn the use of Palestinians as cannon fodder every time Hamas decides to use innocent people as a means of achieving its political ends. I condemn the politicians who condemn terrorism publicly but then send letters of praise to the families of those who have died in the pursuit of terrorism, and I despair about the lack of political courage on the Palestinian side that prevents the final mile to peace being walked.

[Dr Offord]

Will the hon. Gentleman also condemn the accusations that the Palestinian Authority is paying salaries to convicted terrorists? [Interruption.]

[Mr McCann]

Somebody said from a sedentary position, “No, it’s not,” but actually, it is. I am a member of the International Development Committee, and the Palestinian Authority Finance Minister confirmed that to us at a meeting, at which other Members were present. He wants to stop it because he cannot afford it and wants to spend the money on doing things that are constructive, rather than on paying high-scale salaries to those who have committed the most heinous of crimes and are in prison. I condemn all those actions.

My next point is the crucial one for those who would take umbrage at me for questioning the courage of the Palestinian leadership in moving forward. Arguably, the closest we have got to peace was the 2000 Camp David summit. Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak brokered a deal that covered all of the problems: security, borders, refugees, the right of return and, most crucially, Jerusalem. Once again, it was an Israeli Labour politician, Ehud Barak, who put his head above the parapet for peace. The deal was rejected—this is widely accepted—by Yasser Arafat, and that was the precursor to the second intifada. In March this year, when I was visiting the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the IDC, we met the PLO negotiation team. After talking about the desire for peace, which I accept was absolutely sincere, I said to the PLO negotiator in private, “If the Clinton deal was put back on the table with 2014 prices, would you accept it?” Answer came there none. That is a very interesting position for someone who is supposed to desire peace.

Since 1987, there have been 410 early-day motions, 157 debates and 13,348 contributions by Members.

Iran (UK Foreign Policy)

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for securing this debate. I was delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, with whom I have disagreed over the years, although I have the highest regard for his intellect and his tone and approach to foreign affairs, started with the context in which we have to look at Iran, because that is incredibly important.

In a way, I see Iran almost as two nations, which are sometimes contradictory. Iranians are sophisticated and proud people—they do not want to be humiliated—and it is important to remember that they are Persians, not Arabs. Yet there is quite a strong liberal streak inside Iranian society. One very good example of that is the widespread acceptance of family planning. Iran has the most effective family planning regime in the world. In 1979, Khomeini wanted to expand the population of Iran to fight Iraq, but was told he did not have the infrastructure to support an expanding population. So a complete U-turn was done and Iran has stabilised its population growth, without any of the draconian methods that China, for example, has had to impose. Tehran university has more female undergraduates than male undergraduates at the moment, so there are indications that a young, youthful, well-educated society is on the way up, which may yet change the face of Iran. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister was able to meet President Rouhani at the United Nations the other day and supported the conventional thinking that we need to keep the dialogue going. On the other hand, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn has said, Iran has the most appalling human rights record, with child executions, political prisoners, the presidential candidates from 2009 still under house arrest and almost non-existent press freedom.

Iran is a foreign policy nightmare: its support for President Assad in Syria, through Hezbollah funding and the positioning of the revolutionary guard in Syria, is causing immense difficulties; it is undermining the Government of Bahrain by support for the Shi’a minority there; it openly supports, and is funding, Hamas in its criticism of and aggression towards Israel; it is running a complex network of weapons-smuggling routes into Gaza, through Egypt, with the sole intention of attacking Israel—it is in defiance of four UN Security Council resolutions on that; it has engaged in the funding of and support for attacks on Israeli diplomats around the world; and its antipathy towards Saudi Arabia is legendary, although this goes both ways. I will return to that point in a minute.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions have serious implications for a number of different factions and groupings around the country. For the EU and the west, there is an impact on our security if the Iranians have a nuclear capability. There will also be economic consequences, with a loss of stability in the middle east. Israel is rightly concerned about Iran’s ambitions. The regional consequences are also serious, with Saudi Arabia now developing its own nuclear research programmes, as is Jordan—surprisingly. That just shows the nervousness in the region.

Iran has a complex and cumbersome structure of government, and one often asks oneself, “Who is actually running the show?” The ultimate power lies with the Supreme Leader, who does not exercise his power in an authoritative, dictatorial way, but does so in a more consultative way, with occasional nudging, sometimes aggressively, as we have seen in the nuclear negotiations. Just to add to the complications, the Supreme Leader at the moment is ailing and, as he has to make difficult decisions about the negotiations, that is not helpful. On the other hand, we have the President, who is more the chief executive, but a strong one, and he is the head of the nuclear negotiations.

When President Rouhani was elected to office—to the surprise of many as he was the most moderate candidate—we all said that he was a man with whom we could do business. He is a moderate who suits the situation. But we must judge him by his actions, not his words, and reining in a few hotheads in the revolutionary guard is about all we have seen, and we are still waiting for the beef.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend also aware that Ban Ki-moon’s annual report to the General Assembly in October highlighted the fact that President Rouhani was expected to be a very moderate leader, but in fact the number of executions, especially of juveniles, has increased? The expectation has not been borne out in his actions in the country.

[Sir Richard Ottaway]

Yes, I am aware of that comment. However, the interpretation that my hon. Friend puts on it may be slightly unfair to Rouhani who does not necessarily control the judicial system or the sentences that are being handed down. The question is: can we trust him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

The House is sometimes criticised for not passing enough legislation and because the Government have allocated days for Backbench Business Committee business. This is a great example of a debate in which hon. Members can discuss a subject that we would not ordinarily discuss.

On 24 November 2013, it emerged that a deal had been reached between Iran and the five members of the UN Security Council—the UK, the US, France, China and Russia—plus Germany. The deal was the outcome of years of negotiations behind the scenes and a decade of public diplomacy following the revelations that there was a wide-scale uranium enrichment programme in Iran. The P5 plus 1 countries and Iran concluded an interim six-month agreement known as the joint plan of action, which was intended to restrain Iran’s nuclear programme in return for limited sanctions.

On 26 February this year, I led a Westminster Hall debate and raised the concerns of many people about the P5 plus 1 tacitly recognising Iran’s right to enrich uranium, which has been rejected by many people over the years. Another concern was relaxing some of the Iran sanctions. As we anticipate the final deal at the end of the month, it is worth highlighting those concerns and the red lines that I believe need to be contained in any such deal.

The first issue is the length of time for which the deal will last, and the second is the basis on which agreement will be struck on Iran’s past nuclear capability. Only by adhering to strict limits on the nuclear programme for an extended period of time can Iran build up confidence that its nuclear activities will not be used for military purposes. The P5 plus 1 must seek an enduring deal that will last a considerable time—at least 20 years and possibly 30—to ensure a substantive change in Iran’s strategic conduct.

Reports already published indicate that Iran is pushing for a so-called “sunset clause”—for a deal to last only five years as an absolute maximum, after which it would expect to be treated as a normal signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. I have some concerns about that. Such a deal would probably cover only President Rouhani’s term of office, and the next President, or the next President’s successor, may have a completely different view of the subject, just as Ahmadinejad did. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister said in July 2014 that if Iran accepts a limit on its nuclear activities

“it will only be for a specific time frame, and temporary”.

Reports that the P5 plus 1 and Iran may settle on a duration as short as five to 10 years will do little to relieve my suspicions over Iran’s long-term nuclear ambitions. It would be little more than a temporary reprieve of one of the world’s greatest security threats.

Iran must earn the right to be treated as a normal non-nuclear weapons state under the NPT through a tangible display of peaceful nuclear intentions for the duration of any long-term agreement. Indeed, the quarterly report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear programme, which is due imminently—perhaps even as early as tomorrow—is likely to say that Iran has still not provided the information it was supposed to have provided more than two months ago. Since Rouhani became President, Iran has promised to work with the IAEA, but it has failed to address specific areas of the agency’s inquiry. It has long been clear that the IAEA’s inquiry into the possible military dimensions of Iran’s programme will not be completed before the target date for a deal. I had hoped for more headway by that time. The deal would require a robust system of inspection of Iran’s future and past nuclear activities to verify that it would adhere to the terms of any agreement and not attempt to break out.

The need for strict verification mechanisms is a product of Iran’s nuclear programme having a clandestine history, and it warrants higher levels of accountability than would be acceptable for others. Only the verification of Iran’s nuclear-related activities and the apparatus to enforce it will determine the lasting success of any permanent nuclear agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) said, without complete access to Iran’s full portfolio of declared and undeclared nuclear-related facilities, no amount of monitoring and inspection can provide the international community with true confidence that Iran does not possess a clandestine programme.

The second issue I wish to cover, which my hon. Friend also touched on, is the possible military dimension of a nuclear capability in Iran. One specific locale that is believed to be such a possible military dimension is the military base at Parchin, where the IAEA suspects Iran has attempted to develop a nuclear explosive device. IAEA inspectors have not been permitted to enter the site since 2005, but only a month ago a large explosion at the facility destroyed a number of buildings. The cause of the explosion is still not known. The IAEA has long suspected Iran of conducting tests there relating to the development of nuclear weapons, including on nuclear triggers and high explosives. In 2011, the organisation reported that

“such experiments would be strong indications of possible nuclear weapon development”.

Those suspicions have heightened in recent years, with satellite imagery indicating that Iran has undertaken a large-scale nuclear clean-up operation in the area—possible evidence of the removal of hazardous nuclear materials. Experts cite the removal of soil as recently as 2012 and subsequent asphalting of the specific place that the IAEA wants to inspect, as evidence of Iran’s efforts to hide potentially incriminating evidence of illicit nuclear-related experiments at Parchin.

Tehran rejects calls for access and claims it is a domestic military site that is used for research and development and the production of ammunition, rockets and high explosives. Even the White House acknowledges that Parchin is one of the issues Tehran has to address to achieve a comprehensive agreement. Despite such concern from around the world, Iranian officials have stated that they will only allow minimal and managed access to the site if and when Iran decides to accept the additional protocol.

This causes me two concerns. First, such resistance calls into question Iran’s claim that it is entering into these nuclear talks in good faith, and its overall acceptance of making its nuclear programme more transparent. Secondly, it raises concerns about a deal on Iran’s nuclear capabilities being adhered to and properly implemented. If there is no effective monitoring verification before a deal, how can we know if it is being complied with?

Finally, there are three points relating to the UK’s role in the process that I want to mention to the Minister. First, as a member of the P5 plus 1, the UK Government have played a leading role in the international community’s handling of the Iranian nuclear issue and I commend them for that. Secondly, I congratulate the Government on pressing Iran to respond to international concerns over its nuclear activities, and even unilaterally imposing an unprecedented series of sanctions against Iran for its continued non-compliance. Thirdly, the UK Government now stand to play a decisive part in shaping the terms of a final nuclear agreement with Iran. We must ensure that any such deal is the right deal. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) said, it not just any deal we need, but the right deal.

Palestine and Israel

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Straw]

It is the Palestinian Authority that is part of the negotiations, not Hamas. I believe that the fact of the Israelis’ intemperate reaction to the very prospect of the House passing this resolution is proof that it will make a difference. The only thing that the Israeli Government understand, under the present demeanour of Binyamin Netanyahu, is pressure. What the House will be doing this evening will be to add to the pressure on the Government of Israel. That is why they are so worried about this resolution passing. Were it just a gesture, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) implied, they would not be bothered at all. They are very worried indeed because they know that it will have an effect.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but does he not accept that this is a Back-Bench motion? This has no effect on Government policy, and it is just futile.

[Mr Straw]

We represent the electorate of the United Kingdom. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, having spent 13 years sitting on the Treasury Bench, that resolutions passed in the House, whether they emanate from Back Benches or Front Benches, make a difference, and this resolution will, if it is passed, make a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I had not anticipated being called to speak, so I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The proposal for this House to recognise Palestinian statehood is not only premature, but misguided. An affirmative vote tonight would be nothing more than a propaganda victory for those who wish to bypass the mediation of the peace process in favour of international institutions such as the United Nations where the Palestinian Authority enjoy an automatic majority.

Three years ago President Abbas made it explicit that the attempt unilaterally to assert statehood through the UN was to ensure that it

“would pave the way for the internationalisation of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us”—

the Palestinian Authority—

“to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the international Court of Justice.”

The Palestinian Authority are seeking to create opportunities for new diplomatic and legal fronts on the conflict with Israel that enable a distraction, an alternative and an escape route from the bilateral principle entailed in the Oslo accords and subsequent diplomatic frameworks.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Dr Offord]

I will not give way at the moment.

The proposers of this motion are aiding those efforts and turning their backs on the peace process. That is not a proposal that I can accept.

The middle east peace process is underpinned by several key documents—this has not been addressed tonight —that prohibit the unilateral diplomatic action this motion would allow and deem it to undermine the prospect of a negotiated settlement.

In 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organisation committed itself to a declaration that

“all outstanding issues relating to the permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”

This was followed two years later by the Oslo II agreement, where the PLO said it would not take any step that would change the status of the Palestinian territories pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr Offord]

I will not give way at the moment.

That principle has a binding validity on all parties and has been subsequently reaffirmed as the only acceptable basis for a resolution.

[Crispin Blunt]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

[Dr Offord]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

That is also an agreement to which our Government of the United Kingdom, as part of the European Union and the Quartet, are a signatory. Therefore, this motion asks the UK Government to break their commitment to the peace process. That is not a proposal that I can accept.

A negotiated two-state agreement would also resolve others issues, including borders, security arrangements and recognition by all of Israel’s right to exist, but this motion would allow recognition of a Palestinian state that would not even recognise or even accept Israel’s 1967 borders. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), has called for the 1967 borders. If we had acceded to such requests in the past, the Golan heights would be in the hands of Syria or, in fact, ISIL nowadays, meaning that Israel would not be able to continue to exist, which I cannot accept.

Similarly, the concept that the 1948 armistice lines should become a border with a terror state is another irresponsible policy and something in which the Parliament of any liberal democracy should not be involved in any way. The battle that Britain and our allies are a part of is to stop the spread of fundamentalist Islamist control over the Levant—of which Israel is a part—and not to speed it along.

[Mr Straw]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that when I intervened on the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) I was careful with my language and spoke about any borders being based on 1967, not resolutions? That is no different from that which is contained in the final page of the road map, which was endorsed by the Government of Israel, among others.

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful for that clarification.

Recognition of Palestine appears attractive as it is considered to be the first step towards the internalisation and perceived legitimisation that could allow diplomatic and legal challenges to Israel through organisations that are perceived to be sympathetic to Palestinian grievances. The recognition of Palestine would produce significant setbacks for the existing peace process and is bound to elicit a retrenchment in the position of Israel when it has previously agreed statements that have produced land swaps for peace.

Most infamously, that occurred in 2005 when Israel undertook the unilateral move to withdraw from Gaza. Members all know what has happened since: more than 11,000 rockets have been fired from the Gaza strip into Israel by terrorists. Some 5 million Israelis are currently living under threat of rocket attacks, and more than 500,000 Israelis have less than 60 seconds to find shelter after a rocket is launched. That means that people in the biggest cities of Israel, including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa, are all at risk.

On the other hand, negotiated peace deals, such as the Egypt and Israel peace treaty in 1979 and the Israel and Jordan peace treaty in 1994, are examples of land being relinquished in return for stable peace negotiations. The same did not occur at the Camp David negotiations in 2000. The proposal to establish an independent Palestinian state in virtually all of the west bank and Gaza, along with a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, was rejected because of the alternative condition that the Palestinian Authority declare an end to the conflict as part of the final agreement.

Consequently, the proposal for the recognition of Palestinian statehood without the fundamental aspects of final-status negotiations, coupled with a reciprocal agreement that relinquishes further claims over lands, property, settlements, the right to return and access to Jerusalem, is premature.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend said that he had not intended to speak and he seems to be making up for that by reading, at great speed, from an Israeli Government handout. Could we at least establish these ground rules: those of us who support the motion are still firm friends of Israel and defend its right to security, but we also believe in justice for the Palestinian people?

[Dr Offord]

I am grateful for another helpful intervention, but I assure my hon. Friend that this is certainly not an Israeli Government press release. [Interruption.] I can hear another hon. Member chuntering away, but never mind.

It is vital that any peace is achieved through negotiation and mutual agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, not through unilateral moves or pre-emptive recognition. Formal progress in peace deals has only ever been achieved through bilateral talks, which remain the way forward for the peace process. No credible peace-building initiative has ever emerged from the UN General Assembly. Both the UK Government and the Conservative party have been clear that bilateral negotiations are the only path to a stable peace. I had understood that that was the Labour party’s policy, but its Members seem to have been whipped to vote for this motion because their leader cannot make up his own mind on Israel.

Members of Parliament should vote against any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood while making it clear that they support the creation of a Palestinian state through direct bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. It is of great concern that the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Blackburn has been selected, because I felt that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) was more than adequate.

The diplomatic process, realities on the ground, international law and not least the UN system itself are likely to suffer serious negative consequences if Members accede to the Palestinian attempt to remove the search for a two-state solution from the established bilateral framework. It is vital that we send a clear message that such an approach, which the Palestinian leadership has pursued since 2010, is a dead end. At best it is a costly distraction and we should vote against this motion tonight.

Middle East and North Africa

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy]

Hamas knew about the proposal sufficiently to reject it and then to fire 50 rockets in response to it, so I think that tells us all we need to know. And President Abbas seemed to know about it, because he stood up, quite rightly, and urged Hamas to accept it. This is a concern.

[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]

We must remember why we are in this situation and where we have got to. I understand the UK Government’s support for the unity Government. I understand their aims in doing so, and I understand that they have the best of intentions. It is a concern, however, that one of the unity Government’s constituent parties—although it is not actively serving in that Government, which is a technocratic one—does not recognise the state of Israel in its charter, and that it seeks not only the total destruction of Israel but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire said in his opening speech, the destruction of Jewish people around the world. I cannot understand how we can possibly expect to move forward with the unity Government when some of the potential members will not sign up to the Quartet principles. I will not dwell on the subject, but I agree entirely with the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside).

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that actions in overseas territories, such as Palestinian territories and Israel, have implications for my constituents? The Community Security Trust has said that anti-Semitic attacks have doubled, and of the 50 attacks that have occurred in recent weeks, 30 have been directly attributed to the incidents in those territories. The insistence of Hamas and other organisations on making claims such as we are discussing ends in violence towards my constituents.

[Andrew Percy]

Indeed, and I am sorry to hear about that. There are many good people who support the Palestinian cause for just reasons, but we must be honest and say that some use the cause for more sinister ends. We have heard examples of those, and they are truly shocking. I have no doubt that everybody here, whatever their view on the conflict, would condemn such actions entirely.

I want to say a little about the Israeli response. It has saddened me that some have bandied about phrases regarding collective punishment and the proportionality of the response. It is incredibly sad that people have died on any side of the conflict, but we cannot conclude, because of the way Hamas acts and the fact that it puts more of its civilians in harm’s way, that Israel’s response must be disproportionate simply because more people have sadly died. Let us be honest about what is going on. Israel does not fire rockets from its civilian population. While we have been debating, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency has confirmed that one of its schools in Gaza has been used as a hiding place for rockets, and the agency is due to make a statement on that shortly. That tells us all we need to know about why there are such large numbers of civilian casualties.

Gaza

Matthew Offord Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I agree that it is important to ease restrictions on Gaza. The Israeli restrictions on the movement of goods and people do tremendous damage to the economy and the living standards of the people of Gaza, and, in our view, that serves to strengthen, not weaken, Hamas in the long term. An improved economy is essential for the people of Gaza, including the children of Gaza, but it is also ultimately firmly in the security interests of Israel.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of reports that Hamas is using Gaza’s largest hospital, Al-Shifa, as a command and control centre to direct rocket attacks?

[Mr Hague]

I do not have specific information about that, but the Israeli Government argue very strongly that civilian facilities are used in Gaza to shield rocket launches and military operations by Hamas, and there is a good deal of credibility in those assertions.