House of Lords Official Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Vol. 741 Monday No. 77 3 December 2012 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICIAL REPORT ORDER OF BUSINESS Questions Iran European Council: December Meeting British Transport Police Immigration: Home Office Meetings Medical Innovation Bill [HL] Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill Prisons (Property) Bill Marine Navigation (No. 2) Bill Presumption of Death Bill Mobile Homes Bill First Readings Six Statutory Instruments Motions to Approve Canterbury City Council Bill Leeds City Council Bill Nottingham City Council Bill Reading Borough Council Bill Third Readings Draft Cumbria (Electoral Changes) Order 2012 Motion of Regret Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2012 Motions to Approve Palestine: United Nations General Assembly Resolution Question for Short Debate Legal Profession: Regulation Question for Short Debate Grand Committee Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill Committee (1st Day) Written Statements Written Answers For column numbers see back page £3·50 Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly notify their wish to receive them. No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the Daily Report. This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/index/121203.html PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES DAILY PARTS Single copies: Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 Annual subscriptions: Commons, £865; Lords £525 LORDS VOLUME INDEX obtainable on standing order only. Details available on request. BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the session. Single copies: Commons, £105; Lords, £60. Standing orders will be accepted. THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. All prices are inclusive of postage. © Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2012, this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 431 Iran[3 DECEMBER 2012] Iran 432 table. We fundamentally believe that the best way to House of Lords deal with this matter is through pressure and engagement, and that is the process that we have adopted. Monday, 3 December 2012. 2.30 pm Baroness Deech: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that there is something that is perhaps slightly Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford. upside down about this Question and that what we should be worrying about is the legality of the preparation of nuclear weapons by Iran? No country should have Iran to face the choice between obliteration and self-defence. Question Baroness Warsi: The noble Baroness raises an 2.36 pm important point. We have concerns and it is because of Asked By Lord Wood of Anfield those concerns that there have been successive United Nations resolutions on this matter over a number of To ask Her Majesty’s Government what legal years. It is why the international community wants advice they have received on whether a pre-emptive Iran to be much more transparent and why we continue military strike on Iran would violate international to engage and push for that transparency. We would law. all like to come to a negotiated solution. The Senior Minister of State, Department for Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is the Minister aware Communities and Local Government & Foreign and that, in her reply to my noble friend Lord Wood, she Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi): My Lords, said that a pre-emptive was not justified “at this the Government do not believe that military action time”? Can she tell us when she envisages that such a against Iran is the right course of action at this time, strike might be justified? although no option is off the table. We believe that the twin-track approach of engagement with Iran and Baroness Warsi: As I said at the outset, all options pressure through sanctions is the best way to resolve are on the table. It would be inappropriate for me to the nuclear issue. We do not comment on legal advice speculate on what scenarios may come forward in the and will not speculate about the legality of various future, and of course it would depend very much on scenarios. the scenario we faced at the time. However, I can be clear that the Government are certainly mindful of Lord Wood of Anfield: I thank the Minister for that their legal obligations within international law. Answer. I have asked this Question because of a report in the Guardian which suggests that the Attorney Lord Hannay of Chiswick: Does the Minister not General’s Office has argued internally in government agree that there would be no doubt whatever about the that providing assistance to forces that could be involved legal situation if Iran developed nuclear weapons? It in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of would be illegal under the nuclear non-proliferation international law. Will the Minister clarify the treaty, which was signed and ratified. However, rather Government’s understanding of the principles that than having the argument this afternoon about the should inform any decision about assisting forces in a legalities, is not the top priority, with the new American pre-emptive strike on another country? Administration, to revive the second of the two tracks— not the sanctions track, which must be kept up, but the Baroness Warsi: I can inform your Lordships’ House track to talk to the Iranian regime? Would it not be that we are not advocating military action against worthwhile for the Government to take the view with Iran. We continue to believe that the twin-track process the United States Administration that they should of pressure and engagement offers the best hope of have some kind of bilateral contact with the Iranians resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. In relation to legal before matters get to the point where they cannot be advice, the noble Lord will be aware that it is not retrieved? practice to inform this House or notify parliamentarians of specific legal advice, if any, that we may be obtaining. Baroness Warsi: Discussions about these matters are ongoing in a number of different ways. The noble Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, Lord will be aware that the E3+3—Russia, China, the leaving aside the legal considerations, given that a US and ourselves, France and Germany—have had pre-emptive all-out strike on Iran would almost certainly four meetings since the beginning of this year; I think be militarily unsuccessful, unite Iranian opinion behind since February.Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, the leadership and scupper any diplomatic talks, would is in the process of taking forward a further meeting, not such a move be militarily inept, politically unsuccessful possibly before Christmas. We are absolutely committed and diplomatically disastrous? to negotiating our way out of this matter. Baroness Warsi: My Lords, my noble friend comes Lord Anderson of Swansea: Does the noble Baroness to these matters with great experience and expertise, agree that, while the centuries-old legal principles in and it is important that voices such as his are heard. respect of pre-emptive strikes remain valid, they have However, I can assure him, as I can assure the House, been transformed in practice by the speed of warning that there is no plan whatever to take military action and response in the nuclear age? Although we, along against Iran, although of course all options are on the with much of the security establishment in Israel, may 433 Iran[LORDS] European Council: December Meeting 434 [LORD ANDERSON OF SWANSEA] European Council: December Meeting be highly critical of a possible strike, should we not at Question least acknowledge the dilemma of the Israeli Government, who are faced with President Ahmadinejad, who has 2.46 pm said he intends to destroy Israel and may very well Asked By Lord Liddle soon have the capability to do just that? To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their Baroness Warsi: Iran’s development of military nuclear priorities for the December meeting of the European power is a matter of concern for many more countries Council. than just Israel. It is why we have United Nations Security Council resolutions in relation to this matter The Senior Minister of State, Department for and it is why we have tried to negotiate with Iran over Communities and Local Government & Foreign and a number of years. It is important to continue those Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi): My Lords, negotiations and discussions. These are concerns that the December European Council will cover economic we in this country have too. policy, including economic and monetary union and banking union, as well as defence enlargement and foreign policy. The UK will seek to ensure the integrity Baroness Williams of Crosby: Does the Minister of the single market in relation to banking union and agree that only a few weeks ago Mr Soltanieh, the economic and monetary union. We will press for further Iranian ambassador to the IAEA, specifically indicated progress on growth and work to ensure that the defence that Iran was now open to the possibility of bilateral strategy reflects UK priorities.