Asked by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock To ask Her Majesty’s Government
what action they are taking to secure the release and return to the
United Kingdom of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The Minister of State,
Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign,
Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond
Park) (Con) My Lords, it is unacceptable and unjustifiable that
Iran has chosen to continue with this second, wholly arbitrary
case...Request free trial
Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to
secure the release and return to the United Kingdom of Nazanin
Zaghari-Ratcliffe.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
( of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, it is unacceptable and unjustifiable that Iran has
chosen to continue with this second, wholly arbitrary case
against Nazanin. Iran has put her through an inhumane ordeal. We
continue to call on Iran in the strongest possible terms to allow
her to return to the UK to be reunited with her family. The Prime
Minister raised her situation with former President Rouhani, and
the Foreign Secretary continues to engage with Foreign Minister
Amir-Abdollahian, most recently on 8 November.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I commend the bravery of Richard Ratcliffe—
Noble Lords
Hear, hear.
(Lab Co-op)
—in his determination to get his wife home safe. We understand
why he ended his hunger strike, and it was right for him to do
so.
Will the Minister now confirm that there is no doubt whatever
that the United Kingdom Government owe Iran £400 million for
tanks the Iranian Government paid for but which were never
supplied? Secondly, when the Prime Minister was Foreign
Secretary, he pledged that that debt would be paid, and it is
further acknowledged that when it is paid, Nazanin will be
released. Can the Minister therefore use his undoubted influence
with the Prime Minister to get him to make it his top priority to
resolve this issue and get Nazanin released and returned home to
her husband and daughter, because it is the Prime Minister’s
moral duty to do so?
of Richmond Park (Con)
Like the noble Lord, I recognise the commitment and huge
sacrifice that has been shown by Mr Ratcliffe and the families of
other British detainees in seeking the release and return of
their loved ones detained in Iran. We continue to call on Iran to
end Nazanin’s suffering immediately and to allow her to return
home to her family in the UK. But I need to be clear, in the
place of my colleague and noble friend Lord Ahmad, who is not
here to answer the Question, that the UK does not and never will
accept our dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. Our
priority is securing Nazanin’s immediate release so that she can
be reunited with her family.
(Con)
While it is absolutely right that the dreadful detention of
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe should be kept totally separate from
other issues in the relationship with the Iranian Government,
will my noble friend explain the delays in the payment of the
proper debt for the Chieftain tanks that were never delivered? It
seems to me a straightforward matter, entirely separate from this
horrible detention issue, which surely could be settled, and
settled fast. Can he explain what the delay is because we do not
understand?
of Richmond Park (Con)
As we have said—I know my colleague has said this many times from
this Dispatch Box—we are actively exploring the options to
resolve this case, but it is not helpful in any way to connect
wider bilateral issues with those arbitrarily detained in Iran.
It remains in Iran’s gift to do the right thing and to allow
British dual nationals home to be reunited with their
families.
(LD)
My Lords, I have met Richard Ratcliffe and I associate myself and
colleagues who have met him with the comments made by the noble
Lord, Lord Foulkes. In May, the Foreign Secretary said that the
treatment of Nazanin amounts to torture. There is no point in a
British Government making clear assertions on the contravention
of a UN convention if they do not follow through with any
actions. When I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, why the
Government had not formally requested that Iran investigate the
accusation of torture, he said that he would ensure that it was
in the Foreign Secretary’s briefing pack when she met Richard.
Why have the Government not formally requested that Iran act on
the convention which it is duty bound to carry through?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, no one disputes that Iran’s treatment of Nazanin and
others in similar circumstances is inhumane and cruel, exceeds
any normal boundaries of behaviour by a state and is completely
unacceptable, but I cannot add more to what my colleague the
noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said in answer to the same question just
a few weeks ago.
(CB)
Do we owe money to Iran? If we do, why has it not been paid?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the IMS payment is a long-standing case relating to a
historic debt owed to pre-revolution Iran. We continue to explore
options, as I said before, to resolve this case.
(Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests as
set out in the register. I totally support what the noble Lord,
Lord Foulkes, said. The behaviour of the Iranian Government in
this affair is disgraceful, but the Government have not been
clear. They have been very ambiguous in answering questions in
the House about this issue, including, as was said, in the
previous debate in which it was raised. Will the Minister confirm
or deny that fear of American sanctions is preventing this money
being paid?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, from my vantage point, if I may couch it that way, I am
absolutely certain that the premise of the noble Lord’s question
and the assumption within it is not correct.
The Lord
My Lords, what does the Minister think Governments on both sides
might have to learn from a simple prayer that was once prayed on
this day in Coventry, after the destruction of the city? It is a
simple prayer but a brave one; it simply says: “Father, forgive.”
It does not try to forgive the other side, or even to absolve the
other side from responsibility, but it does say that, somewhere
along the line, both sides, in whatever proportion, need to
accept that a very deep hole has been dug and suffering people
have fallen into it. In this case, there is a suffering woman at
the bottom of the hole, and her husband and child. Can we not do
more to accept that there is something we have a responsibility
for?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I do not accept, and the Government cannot accept, that
we have a responsibility for the incarceration and appalling
treatment of Nazanin. This is a decision made by the Government
of Iran, and one that they can reverse. Of course, we will, and
we continue to, do as much as we possibly can to secure her
release. That is why this issue—this appalling case—has been
escalated to the highest level, not least in the form of
diplomatic protection, which means that it becomes a case between
states as opposed to the prior situation.
(Lab)
My Lords, many people still do not understand the issue of the
£400 million that we owe to Iran; it keeps getting raised. The
Americans have paid money to the Iranian Government despite their
sanctions. Can the Minister please explain clearly what is going
on? Many of us who have met Richard Ratcliffe on his hunger
strike outside the Foreign Office have given him an undertaking
that we shall continue to press the Government. This will go on
and on until the Government do something.
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Government are doing something. We are engaging at
the highest possible level; whether it is the Prime Minister or
the previous or current Foreign Secretary, engagement happens on
a very regular basis. I do not accept the idea that the
Government are doing nothing. However, were the Government to pay
hundreds of millions of pounds to the Iranian Government, that
would undoubtedly be seen as payment for a hostage situation.
Noble Lords
Oh!
(CB)
I am very surprised at the Minister’s answers in relation to the
£400 million. Does he accept that an international arbitration
tribunal—an independent tribunal—has ruled that this country owes
£400 million to the state of Iran? Does he accept that? Does he
also accept that it is vital that this country complies with its
international obligations to meet international arbitration
tribunal reports? Does he also accept that to pay that sum
without further delay would be to meet our obligations, and not
to pay a ransom?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, no one disputes that there is a historic debt, one
which was owed to pre-revolutionary Iran. There is no dispute or
debate about that. However, here I am answering a Question about
Nazanin, yet the majority of questions relate to that money. The
combination of that issue with the issue that we are dealing
with—an appallingly tragic human case—is exactly what we should
be avoiding. Otherwise, this does become a hostage situation and
any payment of any money becomes payment for a hostage. That is
not in our international current, medium or long-term
interests.
(Lab)
Let us put it a different way. When I met Richard outside the
FCDO, he described the policy of the Government as a “policy of
waiting”. The Minister has said that they are doing things; well,
this House wants to hear precisely what they are doing. One thing
this Government should be doing is ensuring that we improve
relationships with the Government in Iran—to ensure that all the
outstanding issues, including of those who remain in prison, are
properly resolved. So what are the Government doing?
of Richmond Park (Con)
The Government certainly want to improve our relationship with
Iran. In direct answer to the noble Lord’s questions, we have
raised this case at the highest levels of government at every
opportunity. The Prime Minister raised it with President Rouhani
on 10 March this year. The previous Foreign Secretary engaged
regularly with Foreign Minister Zarif. The current Foreign
Secretary, who has been in post for only a few weeks, has spoken
twice now with her counterpart, most recently just a week and a
half ago. Our ambassador and the wider team continue to lobby
Iranian interlocutors at every opportunity. They helped to secure
the release of Nazanin on furlough and continue to push for a
full and permanent release, most recently on 9 November. As I
said earlier, escalation in the form of diplomatic protection on
7 March 2019 represented a formal recognition that her treatment
breaches Iran’s obligations under international law and raises
the status of this case to the highest possible level.
(GP)
My Lords—
(CB)
My Lords—
(GP)
Can we hear from a woman for a change?
(CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the ambitions of
this country is that Iran should adhere to the rule of law? If
so, should we not be adhering to the rule of law—and, therefore,
will he now give us a very clear “yes” or “no” reply to my noble
and learned friend Lord Judge’s very straightforward question,
which he has yet to answer?
of Richmond Park (Con)
Yes, of course, it is in everyone’s interest that Iran as a
country adheres to the rule of law, just as the UK does on a
routine and permanent basis.
(GP)
My Lords, the Government do have some responsibility for the
suffering that Nazanin is experiencing because our Prime Minister
told a lie that she was teaching journalism. That meant that the
Iranian Government were much more exercised about her presence in
Iran when, in fact, she was only there to see her family. Has the
Prime Minister shown any remorse?
of Richmond Park (Con)
The Prime Minister continues to engage on this issue with his
counterpart, as does the entire FCDO. The Government continue to
prioritise this case, as I have relayed to the House, and will
continue to do so.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister not accept that the
answers that he is giving this afternoon—stonewalling answers—are
doing no good to the Government and, most of all, no good to
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe? Can we please accept that this country
does owe this money? Can it not be paid immediately to the United
Nations? That would be a good way of having it transferred. Can
we not have a positive move to get back this poor woman, who has
been tortured and incarcerated as an innocent being?
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of being repetitive, it would be a grave
error for this Government to behave as though that historic debt
is in any way connected to the incarceration of Nazanin, in the
manner in which the noble Lord suggests. It would be disastrous
foreign policy.
(LD)
My Lords—
(Non-Afl)
My Lords—
(Lab)
My Lords—
(Con)
It is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
(LD)
My Lords, the problem is that the Iranians regard the two as
linked. If we will not accept that, how is the difficulty to be
resolved? The Prime Minister made a very foolish intervention;
one might think that that increases his moral obligation. If
there is any question of the Government being in some way
concerned about the attitude of the United States, does anyone
here think that the United States would hesitate for a moment if
the circumstances were reversed? There is, not least, very strong
anecdotal evidence that President Obama did exactly that: release
in return for resources.
of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, if it is the case that Iran conflates these two
issues—and I think the noble Lord is right to say that it
does—that is even more reason why we should not allow dual
nationals to be used as diplomatic leverage.
|
