Iran (Proposed Nuclear Agreement)

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to participate in this debate. I have listened to it with interest. I was tempted to intervene on a number of occasions, but did not because I observed your earlier injunction.

I will start with a couple of facts. Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty. The same cannot be said of Israel, Pakistan or India. Iran is surrounded by countries that have nuclear weapons: to the north, Russia; to the west, Israel; to the east, Pakistan; and, to the south, the United States through its navy. The desire to defend oneself in a tough neighbourhood is normal. Indeed, a moment ago my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said that, if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, it would be rapidly followed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. That is probably correct, but when one listens to the debate, one might think that the Iranians are not sentient or thinking people. One might think that it had not occurred to them that, if they got nuclear weapons, it would be rapidly followed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. One might think that only we heard Prince Faisal when he said:

“Whatever the Iranians have, we will have”.

In fact, in the region, the Iranians are more directly affected by any of this than we are. I think we can take it as read, actually, that Iran will have a rather precise understanding and calibration of the consequences of its actions. I very much welcome the fact that the Iranians and the Saudi Foreign Ministers met in Oman recently.

I will quote from Seyed Hossein Mousavian’s book, “The Iranian Nuclear Crisis”. In a section at the end, under the heading, “An End to Double Standards”, he said:

“The fact that the P5+1 countries maintain strategic and aid relations with Israel, India and Pakistan, which have nuclear weapons and are not parties to the NPT, while at the same time they pressure Iran, which has not acquired nuclear weapons, sends a message to other countries that once they get the bomb they are immune.”

In one of the concluding paragraphs of the entire book, he states:

“I believe that P5+1 handling of the nuclear issue has been bedeviled by U.S. reluctance to give sufficient weight to accumulating evidence that since 2003 Iran has decided to respect its NPT obligation to refrain from manufacturing or otherwise acquiring nuclear weapons. This misjudgment freezes the P5+1 into positions which preclude any movement towards the areas of mutual interest with Iran that, I am convinced, exist.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) said, we alluded to some of those areas of mutual interest in the debate on 6 November. I hope that there is a degree of flexibility in the negotiations to suggest that misjudgment has been suspended and that, while we need to keep our eyes open, there is a possibility of finding a mutually satisfactory deal.

In that debate on 6 November, Jack Straw, who sadly is no longer in the House of Commons, pointed out something that Foreign Minister Zarif had said to him in January last year:

“in 2005, Iran had fewer than 200 centrifuges. After eight years of sanctions, it now has 18,800.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 997WH.]

My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset will say, “Why on earth would they do that if they were not interested in getting nuclear weapons?” The short answer is that it is the same reason why Vladimir Putin plays silly buggers on the international stage: because he can.

Iran has been treated like a pariah state for many years. Several people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), have referred to terrorism. Iran was described earlier in the debate as “the premier sponsor of terrorism.” It is true that Iran maintains relations with Hamas in Gaza and retains relations with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. We know that they are groups engaged in terrorism, but no one would suggest that they are the premier threat to world peace through terrorism at the moment.

It is also true that Iran has relations with the Houthis, who, depending on the definition, are Shi’a. One can meet Iranians, as I did in Tehran in December, who will say that the Houthis are not necessarily Shi’a. When Iranian Members of Parliament visited Westminster in March this year, they made that point in the Foreign Office. Iranians are engaged with the Houthis in Yemen because they rightly think that Yemen is being used by al-Qaeda and Islamic State as an extended training base. Whoever thinks—forgive me, but I cannot remember who said it—that Iran is “the premier sponsor of terrorism” should look around. No one actually said this, but one might be forgiven for thinking that the present firestorm in the middle east, and the fact that we have the most brutal war going on, where people are being beheaded and crucified, is a direct consequence of Iran—it is not.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. I think Mr Bacon was about to give way to Chloe Smith.

[Mr Bacon]

Yes, I was.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

That is fine, but in responding to Chloe Smith, I ask Mr Bacon quickly to conclude his speech.

[Chloe Smith]

My intervention is extremely short, Mr Hollobone, and it is to point out that I believe I referred to Iran as “a premier sponsor”. I hope that that casts some illumination on the notion that there are various sources of threat in this world and that my hon. Friend considers all of them in his following remarks.

[Mr Bacon]

I will. My final point—I will observe your injunction, Mr Hollobone—is that Iran was in the frontline against the Taliban and al-Qaeda and is now in the frontline against IS, which is one of the most brutal, stone-age regimes that we have seen in modern history and which exists as a direct consequence of our having invaded Iraq in 2003 with President Bush and smashed the country into small pieces.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing it. I certainly agreed with the first two speeches, but I did not agree with a great deal that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) said. In fact, I would describe his speech as complacent in parts, particularly what appeared to be his defence of the Iranian regime’s actions compared with other countries. I think it is very complacent to dismiss the Iranian regime’s behaviour in sponsoring terrorism and supporting the murder of individuals around the region and the world on the basis that Iran is on the frontline against ISIS, which is, as he said, a cruel and vicious organisation.

[Mr Bacon]

Since he just accused me of supporting murder—[Interruption.] Those were the words; the tape will show it. Will he draw attention to precisely which words he thinks I used that leant support to murder?

[Andrew Percy]

I was certainly not accusing my hon. Friend; I accused the Iranian regime, which I said he seemed to be defending, of being engaged in the support of mass murder. If he looks at the record, I am sure he will see that.

I pretty much agreed with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy had to say. It is not the first debate on Iran that he and I have taken part in, but as the United Kingdom is one of the members of the P5+1, it is slightly frustrating that we have had few opportunities in the House to debate the detail of what is emerging, or even to express our concerns during the negotiation process. It should greatly worry us all that, in the lead-up to the 30 June deadline, many issues remain outstanding. Not only are there clear discrepancies between the expectations and demands of the various parties to the negotiating process, but many of the proposed parameters are worthy of criticism.

At this very late stage, increasingly concerning reports have been emerging. An IAEA report—I apologise; with my flat vowels, it is hard to get all those letters out together—this month has revealed that Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel has increased by 20% in the 18 months since negotiations began. That point has been made by other speakers. Worryingly, the news completely contradicts President Obama’s contention that the nuclear programme had been frozen in that period. In previous debates, I and colleagues across the House said that that was exactly what we expected to happen.

Of particular concern are the many reports of Iran’s intransigence towards the verification of the so-called possible military dimensions and its continued blocking of access to the country’s military sites to allow the IAEA to carry out crucial investigations. In a previous debate, I quoted a report saying exactly the same thing. Will the Minister tell us how we can possibly ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme is what it says it is when the IAEA is unable to determine the true extent of Iran’s historical research into nuclear weaponry or properly calculate the breakout time?

I am reminded of the words of the sadly now former Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister. His assessment of the process was that past actions predict future actions and that Iran had not earned the right—I have forgotten the quote, Mr Hollobone; I am still very tired from a recent long journey. I will come back to that point in a moment. I do apologise.

Since the announcement of the proposed parameters in April, Iranian officials have avowedly rejected any co-operation with the IAEA’s crucial investigations. That justifies the IAEA’s long-held concerns about the Iranian regime’s true intentions. Only on Sunday, the deputy chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri—excuse my pronunciation; being from Yorkshire I am not particularly good with anything that is not English—reiterated the regime’s position that permission to visit Iran’s military centres

“will definitely never be issued for any kind of access…even if it runs counter to the acceptance of the Additional Protocol”.

That leads to the question: what do the Iranians have to hide?

As the international community makes numerous concessions to Iran, which is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy and others pointed out, a country in the grip of a fundamentalist regime that has sponsored terrorism around the world and particularly in the region, Iran continues to hang its political prisoners and fund terror groups across the middle east. Given everything that the P5+1 and the west are seemingly expected to concede, will the Minister tell us what concessions the Iranians are expected to make in return? I will return to the words of the former Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, who urged extreme caution in our approach to this situation. I hope that the Minister will have those words and warnings in mind when he responds to the debate.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bacon]

When my hon. Friend says “anathema to peace in the region”, I immediately think of Gulf and Saudi financing for IS. When he says “anathema to civil rights”, I immediately think of the civil rights that do not exist in Saudi Arabia. Why does he think that Iran, uniquely, gets picked out?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is right that the rest of the Gulf and the Arabian peninsula is far from being an island of perfection in an otherwise dark world. Other states have serious issues and I would not in any way seek to relieve pressure on the Salafi funding of various regimes around the area. I completely agree that such things are inimical to our interests. The pressure that Islamic State, as it has been laughably called—it should be called Daesh—is putting on our interests in the region is abhorrent. The idea, however, that somehow my enemy’s enemy is my friend is also for the birds—it is completely wrong. We are watching the continuation of a period of violence that started with the battle of Karbala and the deaths of Hassan and Hussain. We do not want to get involved, saying, “No, everyone can nuclearise themselves.” Indeed, my hon. Friend makes my point for me, that to nuclearise one would be to encourage further problems for the whole area.

I repeat that to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons would be anathema to peace for the region, anathema to the civil rights of the society and anathema to our interests. I therefore urge the Minister, who I am glad to see in his place, because he understands the region extremely well, to look hard at what Her Majesty’s Government can do. We need to reinforce our position as a voice for peace in the region, reassure our friends in the Gulf and across north Africa that we will not abandon them and be only fair-weather friends. What will we do to stand up for them if Iran insists on pushing things, because we will be standing up not only for them, but for ourselves?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

[Mr Bacon]

rose—

[Mr Spellar]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells first, then to the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

[Mr Spellar]

As does seeking to procure the assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington.

[Mr Bacon]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right: the Iranians have been sponsoring groups of what we call terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon. I did not deny that at all; in fact, I think I said it. I was simply making the point that the world is on fire, and that is not because of Iran, but because George Bush, who did not know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni six weeks before the invasion of Iraq, smashed the region. We are still suffering the consequences, and Iran is trying to help clear up the mess.

[Mr Spellar]

That is a very simplistic reading of history. The idea that Islamist terrorism was dependent on the invasion of Iraq does not bear any scrutiny. It is interesting that, yet again, the hon. Gentleman referred to “what we call terrorism”. No, it is what the world calls terrorism—and that, indeed, is what it is.

We need to move on to the core questions: what is Iran’s capability, and what is its intention? Those are undoubtedly complex issues. We certainly did not create Iran; it is of very long standing. As the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) rightly said, it is a great historic and continuing nation, and was a great empire and civilisation. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) said that we made it a regional power. History, resources and population made it a regional power.

Interestingly, unlike some other Islamist groups, the Iranian regime has not discouraged education, but very much encouraged it. There is a substantial educated—indeed, sophisticated—section of society. Unfortunately, a considerable number of its members now live in exile, and they would be a huge benefit to a liberal country. There is clearly strong internal opposition to the regime, as we saw with the green revolution after the previous elections, which, as the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, was ruthlessly and shockingly repressed, with too little reaction from the rest of the world—probably not just a moral, but a strategic mistake. There are also widespread executions, and there is imprisonment in absolutely appalling conditions.

It is also rightly said that Iran has drastically worsening relations with its neighbours, who rightly accuse it of not only external threats, but fostering internal subversion. Although there are clearly legitimate, well expressed concerns at some of those neighbouring states’ internal reactions, there is, equally, an understanding of the problems they face. Those problems are a concern to the outside world, just as they are to countries to which Iran—or the Iranian regime, to be more correct—poses an existential threat.

I hope that the Minister will address the broader contextual issues, but my concern is that we see little evidence of strategic vision as Britain retreats from the world stage—something that has been widely commented on in the United States and that is being increasingly understood here. That vision does not mean simplistically dividing the world into friends and foes.

A strong reaffirmation of article 5 of the NATO treaty would be especially welcome to our allies on NATO’s eastern front, who face increasing Russian assertiveness and pressure, but that does not mean that we do not have similar concerns to the Russians in some other parts of the world. Over the years, Ministers will have clearly heard about the Russians’ focus on Islamist fundamentalism and what they refer to as the arc of instability to their south. I agree that that is hard to reconcile with the support given by the Russian nuclear industry to the emerging Iranian nuclear programme. I have heard the justification from Russian Ministers that that support is good business. The argument has also been put to me that one driver of the Russian approach—this was rather echoed by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord)—is the Iranians’ lack of capability to run the system. That runs against the evidence that there is an educated workforce in Iran. It is perhaps a slightly dismissive, almost colonial, position, and a serious miscalculation on the part of the Russians. Will the Minister tell us what efforts have been made to engage with Russia on this issue? Is there a unified Russian view, or are there diverse views in the Russian hierarchy?

Similarly, there is inconsistency in the Russian support for the Assad regime, which is, most significantly, being propped up by the Iranian Hezbollah and the revolutionary guard. We do not need to have any illusions about President Putin’s actions in Ukraine—and, indeed, right the way along Russia’s western flank up into Scandinavia—to see that we may have common interests and concerns in the middle east and north Africa. Ministers will recall that during the last Parliament I regularly made similar arguments about the need to engage Afghanistan’s neighbours in the post-drawdown settlement to ensure stability, stressing that not only Russia and the “stans”, but Iran, should be involved. We therefore need a broader policy on this issue.

I recognise that the Minister needs to time to reply, so, in conclusion, I thank him for his courtesy and for the assistance he has provided during his time in the Foreign Office, which has been most welcome and most appreciated.

Iran (Nuclear Talks)

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government and the Foreign Secretary on the wisdom and patience of their approach, which is plainly required in the nuclear talks. It is plain that the Vienna convention requirements must be adhered to before we can consider reopening embassies, but does he agree that, on a broader range of matters such as the return of citizens and nationals, the opening of embassies should be seen not as some sort of reward but as a useful tool that could help in the resolution of a number of the normal kinds of disputes that occur between nations and that on many of those there is in fact some room for negotiation?

[Mr Hammond]

I agree that the opening of an embassy is certainly not a reward; it is a practical step to give effect to what we hope will be an increasing level and intensity of bilateral relations. In particular, we know that there are significant numbers of Iranian citizens who would like to visit the UK, but who find the current visa application regime onerous—I am talking about requiring them to travel outside the country to obtain a visa. We are moving towards reopening the embassy as soon as we practically can. For that to happen, we must have support from the Iranians to facilitate the work that we need to do to rehabilitate the embassy and all its operating equipment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

As the hon. Gentleman knows and as I think we would expect, some of Iran’s neighbours are deeply nervous about the process. They want to be absolutely reassured that if a deal is done which relieves the sanctions pressure on Iran, it is done in exchange for a cast-iron, copper-bottomed guarantee, if one can have such a thing. Perhaps it is cast-iron round the sides and copper at the bottom.

[Mr Bacon]

And gold-plated.

[Mr Hammond]

Indeed. Iran’s neighbours seek an absolute guarantee that it will not be able to use its civil nuclear programme to develop the capability to build a bomb.

Iran (UK Foreign Policy)

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

May I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) for his exceptional service until recently as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Iran? I was asked to replace him when he submitted to the purdah of the Government Whips Office. It is only fitting in this particular debate to describe his departure thus, given the root of the word “purdah”, which is the Persian for veil or curtain. I do not expect to fill his shoes easily. He is a source of considerable knowledge and wisdom on this subject and is always worth listening to, as is the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), whom I am pleased to join as co-chair of the group.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, Iran is for many of us a land of which we know too little. To create through a revolution a state in which citizens are required to accept one supreme source of divinely inspired authority, which fuses together religious, legal, social and political obligations, and in which the Head of State acts both as the supreme political “guardian” over the people and also as a supreme spiritual leader, while assuming the supreme command of all armed forces and also appointing the Head of Government may seem rather strange to us, or, on the other hand, it may not.

The motto, under the coat of arms of our own sovereign, “Dieu et mon droit”, makes an unvarnished claim of the divine right to rule. The state prayers from the “Book of Common Prayer”, which we repeat each day in this House Commons, make precisely the same claim by referring to our Father as

“the only Ruler of princes”.

The mace, sitting in front of us, which symbolises the authority from our sovereign to sit, and without which we cannot sit, has above the crown a Christian cross, connoting the fusion of supreme political authority with our state religion. Thus the idea that Government should be run according to God’s laws should not be strange to us.

Indeed, when my co-chair, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, was the Lord Chancellor, one of his jobs was to administer the oath for bishops of the Anglican Church, in which they

“do hereby declare that Your Majesty is the only supreme governor of this your realm in spiritual and ecclesiastical things as well as in temporal”.

The oath continues:

“I acknowledge that I hold the said bishopric as well the spiritualities as the temporalities thereof only of Your Majesty and for the same temporalities I do my homage presently to Your Majesty”.

It is therefore more than possible to build a society whose foundational cornerstones for its constitutional arrangements are deeply embedded in a religious tradition, and where the fabric of the state and the fabric of that religious tradition are so intertwined that they form an inseparable tapestry, and do all of this while still creating a space for human flourishing and freedom. That is what we seek to do ourselves. I dare to hope that as the Islamic Republic of Iran continues on its journey, it will weave the future strands of that tapestry in ways that are consistent with its Islamic traditions, and which respect and do homage to those traditions, and meet the needs and desires of its people.

The last time the House held a debate on Iran in February 2012, the motion, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), called for a recognition

“that the use of force against Iran would be wholly counterproductive and would serve only to encourage any development of nuclear weapons”. —[Official Report, 20 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 635.]

I think I am being fair to my hon. Friend when I say that he did not carry the House on that day. Indeed, among the many contributions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) said:

“I repeat that an attack is the least bad option”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 668.]

My hon. Friend did not carry the House on that day, but I read his speech again last night, and it repays re-reading. It was an excellent contribution and stands the test of time.

At that time, the prospect of military action against Iran seemed very real. There was a considerable increase in the level of rhetoric against Iran, particularly by the United States. The foreign policy analyst Trita Parsi suggested in his book “A Single Roll of the Dice” that relations between Iran and the west, particularly between Iran and the United States, had become so polarised over 30 years that it was no longer merely an antagonistic relationship, but had become “institutionalised enmity”—a set of behaviours so entrenched on both sides that the participants could not find a way out. The then US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, predicted that Israel would launch an attack on Iran by April or June 2012. The then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), said at the time that an attack would not be wise and that it would have “enormous downsides”, but the option of military action was left firmly on the table.

I found all this rather puzzling. When I visited the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna later in the spring of 2012, I discovered that I was among fellow sceptics, including my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay. All the parliamentary colleagues on that visit—or at least, those who had been in Parliament at the time—had, as it happened, voted against military action in 2003 against Iraq. We met the nuclear inspectors who were visiting Iran, including Herman Nackaerts, the then deputy director general of the IAEA, who was quite explicit—while certainly also laying out a set of serious concerns—that

“We have no evidence of weapons grade material”.

Like the right hon. Member for Blackburn, I have serious concerns about Iran, including its approach to human rights. The right hon. Gentleman made the important point, as have others, that some of these issues are outside the control of Dr Rouhani, the President of the Islamic Republic. I believe than an Islamic Republic of Iran that felt more secure and respected, and less threatened and demonised, would also, in time, become a kinder Iran. My greatest single concern is that we do not lose the enormous opportunity that faces us. Unfortunately, there is form here.

The Iranian offer, which Tim Guldimann, the Swiss ambassador to Iran, carried to the United States in 2003 included an offer by the Iranians to end their support for Islamic jihad and Hamas and to pressure them to cease attacks on Israel; to support the disarmament of Hezbollah and to transform it into a purely political party; to put their nuclear programme under intrusive international inspections in order to alleviate fears about weaponisation; to provide full co-operation against all terrorist organisations; and perhaps most astonishingly of all, to accept the Beirut declaration of the Arab League—that is to say, the Saudi-sponsored peace plan from March 2002 in which all the Arab states offered collective peace, the normalising of relations with and diplomatic recognition of Israel, in return for Israel’s withdrawal from all the occupied territories, an agreement to share Jerusalem, an equitable solution to the Palestinian refugee issue and the adoption of the two-state solution.

What an opportunity that was for the world. But just as Israel’s late foreign Minister, Abba Eban, used to say of the Palestinians that they

“never lose an opportunity to lose an opportunity”,

so it took a very special combination of qualities in an American Administration to ignore such an offer. History produced just such a combination in Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush. The offer was spurned, and we have been living with the consequences.

Let us contrast that with the position today. As a distinguished group of diplomatists, including Javier Solana, Carl Bildt and Robert Cooper, suggest in The Guardian this morning, if a deal can be reached it could

“reshape the west’s engagement with Iran by opening new options for pursuing overlapping regional interests”.

As the right hon. Member for Blackburn said, if we do not get a deal, we will not simply go back to the status quo ante: as he pointed out, nine years of sanctions have produced a rise from 200 centrifuges to 18,000 centrifuges so, frankly, I do not think that sanctions have achieved their principal aim.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former nuclear negotiator who is now at Princeton university, made a similar point when he wrote:

“The best strategy is to pursue a broad engagement with Iran to ensure that the decision to pursue a nuclear breakout will never come about. Iran and the United States are already tacitly and indirectly cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State…A nuclear agreement would be a great boost to mutual trust and provide greater options for dealing not only with IS and the Syrian regime but also Afghanistan and Iraq—where both Washington and Tehran support the new governments in Kabul and Baghdad”.

As Christopher de Ballaigue, one of the most acute observers of Iran has noted:

“It is one of the perversities of modern politics that the west does not have a decent working relationship with the most important country in the Middle East.”

It is in all our interests that this should change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bacon]

I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. He may not have noticed a news piece on the Al-Monitor website that was published on 4 November—only the day before yesterday—with the headline “Direct US-Iran banking channel could cement nuclear deal”. US and Iranian officials refused to comment on that piece, which says that the Americans are considering

“the creation of what is known as a ‘blessed channel’”

to facilitate further, easier financial transactions.

[Mr Bellingham]

That is very interesting. On the one hand, this financial blackmail is taking place against various UK banks, but on the other, the US is trying to encourage and facilitate trade. This does need looking at, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it.

US Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (British Foreign & Commercial Policy)

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because it leads me on quite neatly to my next remarks. Before I move on, however, I must say that I do not think he can conflate the challenges that some UK banks have—we can come on to the specifics—with the whole range of issues that affect the bilateral trade relationship between the United Kingdom and Iran. For example, banks must consider other aspects in order to comply with regulatory authorities in the UK and the European Union, as well as in the US. Such considerations include anti-money laundering, concerns about counter-terrorism and all the other aspects that banks must consider when assessing risk and ensuring that they comply with the whole package of important regulatory regimes, US or otherwise.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to banks that have fallen foul of the US regime, but those cases concerned not extraterritorial sanctions but transactions that had a connection to US territory. The allegations were that the banks had directly violated US law by conducting business with Iran from the United States, and it is correct that those banks should respond to allegations that they have broken US regulations within US territory.

I want to move on to secondary or extraterritorial US sanctions, which are at the heart of the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Along with the European Union, we have taken steps to protect UK companies from such extraterritorial jurisdiction. The key to our approach to Iran is that our sanctions are so closely aligned with those of the US that the scope for such jurisdictional conflict is small. As I mentioned, we recognise the importance of US and EU sanctions in bringing Iran to negotiations.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I must say that I am rather disappointed with my hon. Friend the Minister’s response—I was hoping it would be rather more Thatcherite, if I can put it that way. It seems that the right hon. Member for Blackburn has a valid point: US trade with Iran is going up and British trade with Iran is being adversely affected. If that is happening, it is possible that the US intends that to happen. Will the Minister address that point?

[Mark Simmonds]

As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Blackburn, I do not think we can conflate the issues relating to the complexity of a bilateral trade relationship with alleged extraterritorial US sanctions. Many other issues are at stake—for example, the fact that the UK Government currently do not encourage or provide support for UK companies to trade with Iran. However, where trade is allowed under the existing sanctions regime—for example, within the scope of the humanitarian issues raised earlier, such as medicines and pharmaceuticals—the UK’s trade with Iran has increased by 80% since 2012. Where it is allowed within the sanctions regime, therefore, there is a significant uplift in UK trade.

I want to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North that we are implementing the EU regulation. The right hon. Member for Blackburn rightly mentioned the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980, but that cannot stop the US applying its laws to the US arm of a British multinational company. It stops the enforcement of US sanctions here in the UK, but cannot stop British businesses making commercial decisions on the basis of perceived risks in the United States.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was talking about representation and was about to point out that Gibraltar is part of the South West England and Gibraltar constituency, which also includes my constituency of Cheltenham and is ably represented by Sir Graham Watson. The point is that Gibraltar does not have separate representation in its own right in the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is right to correct me on calling it a Crown dependency; it is, of course, an overseas territory. It has many of the same special arrangements as various other territories but, uniquely, it is part of the European Union while other overseas territories and Crown dependencies are not formally part of it.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has said he is not clear where this would leave Gibraltar. Is it not obvious that it would leave it between a Rock and a hard place?

[Martin Horwood]

That will probably get the hon. Gentleman “quote of the day” in somebody’s column, but I am not sure how well it will go down in Gibraltar. I do not think we should make light of the serious issue of Gibraltar’s future in the European Union, but I value the hon. Gentleman’s humorous contribution.

We could end up in a bizarre situation whereby Gibraltar votes to remain in the EU and the rest of the UK votes to leave it. We face the prospect of going to the effort of accepting this new clause and giving Gibraltarians their say and the ability to express their own view on their own destiny, but then expelling them from the EU against their wishes. I am not clear how that gives Gibraltarians a real say over their destiny.

European Union Bill

Richard Bacon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note the point of order. It will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and it is a matter for any Minister to make a statement if he or she so wishes.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The House will have heard with respect everything that you have said, and will have been interested to hear your view that you are neither defending the status quo nor advocating a change from it. I know that people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), will say that a constitutional change has occurred to the point at which people will roll their eyes and smile, but this is a very serious matter. The eminent father of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), used to say that people thought procedure was boring but that it is not; it is our safeguard. If what appears to have happened today is confirmed as an acceptable way forward, that would mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could decide whether someone should be a Member of Parliament or not, without their say-so. That is not acceptable.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that I should make any further comment beyond what I have said about the appointment that has been made, the communication of it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me, and my communication of the reality of the matters to the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman is as articulate a spokesman for his point of view as can be found, and he has given further evidence of that this evening. We are grateful to him for that, and he might even wish to join in making representations to the Procedure Committee. That is a matter for him. I really do feel that these matters have been exhausted this evening—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am grateful for that sedentary assent to that proposition.