Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab): I am sensitive to the fact that we are time-limited, Mr Martlew. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) and I look forward to hearing the views of other Labour Back-Bench Members, so we must make time for them. It should not be left just to us to support the Government on this occasion.
Mr. Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con): On that point—
Andrew Mackinlay: If the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself, I might say some other things that will prompt him to ask me to give way.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) on securing the debate. Although I know that it tends to become a matter of rubric to congratulate people, he does need to be congratulated on that, on the way he prosecuted the case and on how he illustrated the concerns of many Back-Bench Members across the political spectrum about the situation and how we have reached it in terms of our international diplomacy.
I share concerns about the gravity of the international situation. I do not think that it has been so grave since the fall of the Berlin wall. What surprises me is that that has not been picked up by some of our colleagues in Parliament or by the media. Put in a nutshell, we know that Israel cannot, and will not, tolerate Iran getting anywhere near having the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. The clock is ticking.
The situation requires the maximum amount of international agreement, particularly among the five permanent members of the Security Council, and all our diplomatic skills to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. Otherwise, even the most moderate Israeli Government will feel compelled to intervene. As Israeli Governments have repeatedly reminded us since the founding of the Israeli state, Israel cannot afford to lose one war. For that reason, the situation is extraordinarily grave.
I take heart from the fact that the Russian Federation and China have joined the other permanent members of the Security Council at least in contemplating reporting Iran to the Security Council. That is significant, because although reference has been made to Russia's commercial interest in Iran and to Iran's aspirations to having nuclear energy and/or a nuclear weapon, both the Russian Federation and China probably recognise the gravity of the situation. They realise that the potential for a major conflict or a conflagration is consequent on Iran's approach to nuclear power and nuclear weapons, which, if not arrested, would have consequences that are in no one's interests. Moscow and Beijing now realise how serious the international situation is in relation to the Tehran regime.
I am surprised that the Minister for Europe is present, because it seems as if a different Minister responds on these issues each time. I am not sure whether he is the jobbing Minister or the Minister who has responsibility for this matter. I do not say that sarcastically—I would like to know the answer. There seems to be a shifting of the sands, which is indicative of how our Foreign Office works—I deliberately say "Foreign Office" and not "Ministers".
I do not think that the Foreign Office has been very skilled in relation to Iran, and that eventually permeates through to the ministerial team, whose sincerity and diligence on this matter I do not question. Disappointing advice and counsel has been given by our diplomatic professionals and that has worked its way through to the ministerial team over a number of years. That is shown by the three wasted years when the EU3, with the best of motives, pandered to, and appeased, the Tehran regime. They have nothing to show for it. History shows us that when we take the advice and counsel of the Foreign Office and follow appeasement, we pay a heavy price later.
As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament, I remember how we were coaxed and encouraged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to visit Tehran. I refused to go. My colleagues were well motivated, but the visit bolstered the regime. It sent all the wrong signals. The visit was made under the encouragement, advice and counsel of the Foreign Office. I say in all seriousness to the Minister that the Government need to listen more to Back Benchers. On some occasions, their prudence and wisdom might surpass that of the mandarins at the Foreign Office. If they listen to Back Benchers, especially across the political spectrum, it might occur to them that perhaps there has been a misread in the Foreign Office about the nature of the regime in Tehran and its intentions.
Reference has been made to people, both in Iran and in painful exile, who are boldly standing in resistance to the regime in Tehran. We must recognise that those who have given the west the greatest indication of the full nature of the threat of developments in Iran and the technologies that it is pursuing in its nuclear programme are members of the Iranian resistance, yet we treat them as pariahs. That is not only unacceptable, it is bad politics.
Many of us consider that the constituent organisation of the national council's resistance, the PMOI, has been listed with a terror tag to placate and appease the dreadful people in the regime in Tehran. That must stop as a matter of justice. It must also stop out of our naked self-interest. We need to send a signal that we stand by people who stand for freedom. We have a rich tradition. In 1940, some people thought that we should not recognise Charles de Gaulle. Whatever we might think of him, he was a brave man and also a correct man. As Churchill said, "Here is the constable of France." He was the flame flickering. There were some who would have tallied and bargained with the Vichy regime. It now comes round full circle. The Minister needs to take account of those who support freedom, and who will also helping him to find out what is really happening in Iran.
{mosimage}Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): The hon. Gentleman mentions the important continued proscription of the People's Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran. I have no doubt that he is aware that, next week, there is a hearing in the European Court of Justice at which the continued proscription of the PMOI will be considered. Does he share my feeling of utter shame that the only Government of a European Union nation who have intervened in those proceedings to retain the proscription are the British Government?
Andrew Mackinlay: That is a good point. My feeling is not one of shame, but one of dismay. The British Government do not read the tea leaves properly. They do not understand, first, that they will ultimately lose in the courts and, secondly, that they are sending all the wrong signals to Tehran. Going to court to resist the legitimate attempts of the PMOI and others to get the terror tag lifted is sending all the wrong signals. The Minister might find my remarks irritating, but if he pauses and reflects on matters, he might find a scintilla of truth in what I say. He might go back to the guys in the Foreign Office and say, "Well, perhaps Mackinlay has a remote point", and that might alter the course of history.
The United Kingdom representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, Ms Dowlat Nowrouzi, announced in January that the Iranian regime has successfully procured two types of equipment—the hot isostatic press and the hot press—to shape enriched uranium as part of nuclear weapons production at the materials and energy research centre near Karaj, 40 km west of the Iranian capital. Both machines are banned. That the National Council of Resistance of Iran is helpfully giving more information to the west is indicative of what happened as recently as a week ago and is a pattern of how it is revealing the true nature of what is happening in Iran. On behalf of hon. Members across the political spectrum, I make the case that for that reason plus others, the Government should reassess their position in respect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran and the PMOI.
Separately from that, I have tabled parliamentary questions about the EU's export licence regime. By inference, some criticism has been made of Russia when dealing with Tehran, but we in the European Union and the United Kingdom still do not have a sufficiently rigorous regime to stop exporting materials to Iran which have a dual use.
I have tabled a series of questions about zirconium silicate. It is used in ceramics production, but it has a dual use. To their eternal credit, the Bulgarian authorities recently intercepted a lorry load of zirconium silicate in transit from the United Kingdom to Iran, but eventually had to let it go through because of a bureaucratic and not up-to-date European Union schedule on dual-use exports. I hope that the Minister will consider such matters.
Many of us want to tell the Minister that, thanks to the negotiations with Europe, the Iranian regime gained another year in which to complete its project in Isfahan. It needed 12 months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Although I have described that in my own words, I am referring to the words of the chairman of the Iranian supreme national security council's foreign policy committee. He bragged that the negotiations with the EU3 bought it more time. An Iranian daily Government organ stated that Tehran had benefited greatly from the talks with the EU3 in advancing its nuclear programme. I am describing the pattern of our failing to send the right signals early enough to potential adversaries so that we make it clear that we will not tolerate and continue such a course of appeasement.
The Foreign Office Minister has been questioned about the Lovers of Martyrdom Garrison, which has been encouraged by the acolytes of the so-called President of Iran. The regime is encouraging young men and women to prepare themselves for martyrdom not in Iran, but abroad, where they should go as the ultimate export of terrorism, to sacrifice their lives in the cause of the regime. Yet again, there has been an embarrassing silence from the United Kingdom Government and the European Union in the face of the declaration by the Tehran regime that it is encouraging young men and women to prepare themselves for the ultimate martyrdom.
Colleagues throughout the House will wish to draw to the attention of the Government that 430 Members of Parliament and peers have now requested them to revisit their attitude to the National Council of Resistance of Iran and the PMOI. Yesterday, 2,000 distinguished lawyers signed a similar declaration. Those involved are not fringe people; they are not made up of the hon. Member for Thurrock. They have had stewardship in this country of both justice and national security. Lord Waddington, who was Home Secretary, is among them, as is Lord Archer of Sandwell, Harold Wilson's Solicitor-General. People from throughout the political spectrum in large numbers are urging the Government desperately to rethink their attitude as a matter both of justice and of plain common sense.
In the interests of the United Kingdom, we should recognise those who are bravely resisting the terrible regime that denies human rights, persecutes people internally, and exports terrorism, as the Prime Minister alluded to a few weeks ago when the deaths occurred of coalition soldiers in Iraq, which have been mentioned. Again, on that occasion we received confusing signals. The Prime Minister, to his credit, was robust, the Foreign Secretary said something similar, but slightly different, and the Secretary of State for Defence said something different again. We need a coherent indictment from our ministerial leaders about Iran's role in funding, facilitating and giving equipment to the irregulars in Iraq who are trying to attack the coalition forces and undermine its work and that of the Iraqi Government.
Mr. Vaizey: rose—
Andrew Mackinlay: I would like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but there is no time, so I shall conclude my peroration by saying that I hope that the Minister will make a name for himself by saying that the Government will reflect on what has been said.
{mosimage}Mr. Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD): I will be brief, because I know that there is enthusiasm in all parts of the Chamber to hear the Minister's response to what has been an interesting debate. We owe a debt to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) for securing this opportunity to discuss such an important subject.
There is a widespread consensus about the nature of the problem, although there may be somewhat less of a consensus about the solution. We should start by acknowledging that our disagreement is not with the Iranian people. I know that that sounds like a general point that is almost not worth making, but it is important, because the Iranian regime is keen to portray the British Government and the British Parliament—and for that matter the British people—the Americans and others as innately hostile to Iran, its people and its way of life. We must be sure to reject that and say emphatically that our argument is not with the people. I have been to Iran on a number of occasions and can recommend it on many levels to others who might wish to visit. The people there have a great appetite for many of the points of common humanity that we would recognise and share with them.
Another important point, which has not been made—or at least not at length—is that we should try to understand the mindset of people in the middle ground in Iran, rather than that of the most extreme people. To take the view of an Iranian person, on the west is Iraq, which is occupied predominantly by the United States but by the United Kingdom as well, while on the east is Afghanistan, which is also subject in large parts to, as an Iranian might see it, occupation by the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries that might not be entirely sympathetic to Iran. Further east are India and Pakistan, which have been discouraged from developing nuclear weapons, but appear not to have paid any great price for having done so. In fact, to the contrary: Pakistan's unelected leader and India's elected leader both seem to enjoy pretty good relationships with the United States, the United Kingdom and others.
I would therefore urge caution to hon. Members who think that people in Iran are unaware of how absurd their regime is being. A lot of them are more open-eyed about the situation and have come to a more rational decision. After all, the President of Iran was elected, albeit in an imperfect election, which caused complications for people who wished to argue that everybody had been hoodwinked. In fact, the Iranian people were more clear about the choices that confronted them than we sometimes give them credit for. That makes the problem more complex than we in Parliament would wish.
Despite that, the backdrop to the development of Iran's nuclear capacity is extremely worrying. Iran has a deeply repressive state that by any liberal standards is one of the worst in the world, with routine restrictions on speech, the media and religious expression, and foreign policy statements from its President that lurch between the alarming and the deranged. Nobody should be in any doubt that the threat is a great one. The Government are therefore right to be pleased that the matter has been reported to the United Nations. That is an important step and we should not be dismissive of it. The threat of sanctions and other activity ought be real. Iran needs to realise that there are economic, political and cultural consequences to being isolated.
When it comes down to it, most people can accept most of those points; but what happens if Iran does not respond to those promptings, however energetic and however firm the consensus among leading world powers? That is the big question that the Minister needs to address. I do not detect any enthusiasm for conflict, and the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that, leaving aside the political considerations, there are enormous practical and military questions that lie between where we are now and intervention of that sort. However, we need to realise the seriousness of the situation and make it emphatically clear to the Iranian regime that it needs to think through the full political and other consequences of the action that it is taking. The Iranian Government have to be extremely careful about brinkmanship and seeing how far they can push the good will and tolerance of western countries, or for that matter of countries around the world.
As in any negotiations, we perhaps also need to recognise that the Iranian Government need to be able to tell their people that they have reached a politically manageable solution, in terms of Iran's internal dynamic. However, as has been said before, ultimately, no Government can afford to rule out any option altogether. I will be interested to hear the Minister expand on what consequences he thinks will follow if the United Nations route does not prove to be successful, as we all hope it will be.
{mosimage}Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) on introducing this important debate on Iran's nuclear programme. Like him and other hon. Members, one has the sense that this is a serious moment and that the next few months and years will be important not only for the international community but for Britain. As somebody who is by nature a reasonably sunny personality—at least politically—I am pessimistic not only about the situation in Iran but about the connected situation in Afghanistan.
Hon. Members have spoken passionately and I should like to congratulate Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel on some most effective lobbying. Perhaps one day, when the regime has changed, we shall have a debate in which Labour and Conservative friends of Iran will be represented.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) seemed to speak on behalf of a number of my colleagues who were unable to get in. He is, of course, the voice of Lady Thatcher, in that when she was Prime Minister she believed that the Foreign Office existed to represent the interests of foreigners inside the United Kingdom. As a shadow Foreign Office Minister, I am not here to defend the Foreign Office—I am sure that the Minister will do that—but I should like to point out a factual error that the hon. Gentleman made. The most malign advice that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was given did not come from a Foreign Office official. Sir Horace Wilson was of course from the Treasury, and we should all know where our real enemies lie in Whitehall.
Our policy is simple. We welcome Monday's decision by the five permanent members of the Security Council to report Iran in March. We recognise that we must work hard to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, for all the reasons that have been succinctly argued by colleagues. However, like other colleagues, I have a number of concerns. It seems that Iran has had numerous opportunities to change course and address international concern about its nuclear intentions, yet the seven resolutions that the International Atomic Energy Agency has passed on Iran since 2003 represent a litany of Iran's failures to declare its activities and the deficiencies in its co-operation with the agency.
After more than three years of inquiries, the IAEA has not been able to establish the details of the full genesis of Iran's programme. Iran has failed to provide transparency and has followed a deliberate policy of concealment. In early January, it removed IAEA seals from its nuclear installations and made preparations to begin enrichment. It has violated its safeguard agreements and there is a long litany of its saying one thing and doing the exact opposite. That is a difficulty for both the Foreign Office and the international community. They are hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. There is no guarantee that any commitment made by Iran, whether individually to the United Kingdom or to the international community, will every be carried out.
A number of hon. Friends and colleagues, including my hon. Friend, put forward the dilemma for any democratic country and the international community. That is what happens when every element of diplomacy has been used, an attempt has been made to bring pressure to bear and sanctions have ultimately been introduced but the country at the receiving end has failed to respond. That leaves a great chasm and some form of military action may then be inevitable.
A number of hon. Friends and colleagues pointed out their concern that if Iran fails to respond and the international community fails to persuade it, Israel might ultimately decide to take military action. If I follow the logic of the arguments of my hon. Friends and colleagues, that puts even greater emphasis on the international community to think about taking the full rack of sanctions. As we know from the United Nations charter, that does not rule out the international community's use of some form of military action.
I want to flag up for the Minister a number of the Conservative party's concerns. We are worried that we seem already to have moved away from the outcome that our Government, the United States and our allies were seeking—an early referral to the UN Security Council. The Government's original response to the Iranian ending of suspension was, rightly, very strong, but are we able to deliver on our threat? Have the Government received assurances from Russia and China that they will support tougher action if necessary and if Iran continues its course of intransigence and confrontation? To my mind, Russia and China are the key. If they decide to sit on their hands and not go the full course, I greatly fear that someone—I am sure that the Government are attempting to point this out to them—will take what most of us would consider to be unacceptable action, which would ultimately be the military option.
Mr. Harper: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Simpson: I will not give way because I shall be only one more minute and other hon. Members, rightly, want to hear the Minister.
We are also concerned that in expressing interest in Russia's compromise proposals and then reportedly offering access to the Lavizan site in Iran, the Iranian Government are employing delaying tactics by doing the absolute minimum to give the impression that they are interested in compromise. That has been their track record over the past five or six years. What is the Minister's assessment of the Russian proposal and Iran's commitment to exploring it?
Finally and crucially, the Foreign Secretary said—this has been touched on by a number of colleagues—that military action against Iran is not an option. The Prime Minister said that all options are on the table. What is the Government's real position on the calls from some quarters to contemplate military action against Iran? I hasten to say that I am not advocating the use of military action, but I do not believe that in any international dispute, either now or in the past, when faced with an intransigent Government, the international community or a nation state can exclude the use of military action. That must always ultimately be in the background and available under not only the UN charter but international law. The Iranian Government should be only too well aware that ultimately that is an option. No one in this Chamber, and certainly not the Government, wants that option to be exercised, but the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary need to come up with a form of words to encompass that. If we do not persuade the Iranians that we in the international community are serious, they will develop nuclear weapons and sooner rather than later one country in the middle east will actively intervene to prevent them. The consequence of that is too horrendous to contemplate.