UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Foreign Affairs

  • David Cameron – 2024 Statement on Vladimir Kara-Murza

    David Cameron – 2024 Statement on Vladimir Kara-Murza

    The statement made by David Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, on 11 April 2024.

    Two years on from Vladimir Kara-Murza’s arrest on fabricated charges, I urge the Russian authorities to release him immediately on humanitarian grounds.

    A committed human rights activist striving for a democratic Russia, and an outspoken critic of the war in Ukraine, Mr Kara-Murza was considered a threat by the Kremlin. Putin locked him up in a bid to silence him.

    We must call out Russia’s callous disregard for his declining health. The victim of two separate poisoning attempts prior to his imprisonment, Mr Kara-Murza is now being subjected to degrading and inhumane conditions in prison, clearly designed to further damage his physical and mental well-being. He has been refused the urgent medical treatment he so desperately needs.

    Through diplomatic interventions at the highest levels, financial sanctions targeted at those behind his poisoning and imprisonment, and by raising his case on the international stage, we are sending a clear message that the UK will not stand for this abhorrent treatment of one of our citizens.

    Russia’s depraved treatment of political prisoners must end.

  • David Cameron – 2024 Speech on the Future Role of the NATO Alliance

    David Cameron – 2024 Speech on the Future Role of the NATO Alliance

    The speech made by David Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, on 3 April 2024.

    Great to be here, in this house that has many memories for me as you can imagine, when I think of all those European Councils, where I spent late nights and early mornings, and it’s very good to be back.

    Seventy five years. NATO is 75 years old. I am 57 years old. But I hope there’s more than just the symmetry of that that I bring to this discussion. I played my part in NATO’s development and am very proud I chaired the Cardiff Summit in 2014, when I think at that stage, just 3 countries met the 2% spending floor, not ceiling, floor, and now we’re in a situation where over 20 countries out of 32 meet that target and NATO is stronger.

    I always feel that NATO wasn’t something I had to learn about or understand: I grew up with it. I was born and brought up between Greenham Common, where the cruise missiles were stationed, and Aldermaston, where our nuclear programme was centred. The first countries I visited as an adult were the Soviet Union and Eastern Union. So I never needed reminding or understanding of the vital importance of NATO in our national life.

    And it’s been extraordinary, having supported it all through its quiet years – years in which some people whether it had a functioning brain – I never lost faith in NATO. I’ve always set the faith in NATO and it’s great to be celebrating its 75th anniversary. And the 75th anniversary when it is so much stronger today than it has been for years.

    And today of course, at the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting we welcomed Sweden for the first time as a full participant. And to bring 2 countries, Finland and Sweden, into NATO, both so highly capable militarily, so financially strong, so knowledgeable about the region, and their military obligations definitely makes NATO stronger.

    Why is NATO so successful? What is next for NATO? What will truly determine its success or failure in the years ahead?

    Why so successful? You’d have to back to 1948 and something Ernest Bevin said, he said: ‘decisions we take now will be vital to the future peace of the world’. That was absolutely prophetic and right. At the heart of NATO’s success is the incredible simplicity of Article Five: an attack on one is an attack on all is something all participants and all people could understand.

    And of course, it was combined with that sense when it was founded of a clear and growing threat. And Most of NATO’s life has had a clear threat; we certainly have that today. Its success is clearly based on its continued expansion.

    What is next for NATO? While it’s clear NATO is not a participant in the conflict in Ukraine, the outcome of that war what happens in Ukraine is, in my view, absolutely vital to the future of Ukraine, and that is why one of the reasons why Britain so strongly supports Ukraine struggle.

    I was meeting earlier with the Slovak Foreign Minister and I pointed out something that not a lot of people know, that my closest relative who was in politics, Duff Cooper, who resigned in 1938 because of the Munich Conference and the decision to dismember Czechoslovakia. To me what we face today is as simple as that. We have a tyrant in Europe who is trying to redraw borders by force. You can appease that approach or you can confront that approach, which is undoubtedly the right thing to do, to confront.

    And that is what we’re doing by giving Ukraine such strong support. I see with Ukraine 2 futures that are open to NATO, to Europe and countries like Britain: there is a future where we support Ukraine, where Putin does not win in Ukraine, where Ukraine recovers its territory and is capable of having a just peace.

    That future is an incredibly bright one for Britain, for Europe, for NATO – it’s a future where NATO will be strong, everyone will see the strength of its alliance, everyone will recognise Ukraine should be and will be a part of NATO, NATO’s capability will grow and people will see that we in the West are capable of standing up to a threat of this magnitude.

    But there is another future, for NATO, the West, Britain and that is one where we allow Ukraine to fail and Putin to succeed; and the celebrations will be held in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and North Korea. That is a very bleak future: not only because I believe other European countries would be at risk but I think all around the world people will look around and wonder how willing to stand up for our Allies, how reliable we were as an Ally.

    And even, the absolute key to NATO of Article 5, Allies in Europe will start looking at each other and wondering how much they can really trust each other, when they said they were going to stand up for each other and oppose aggression. I think the biggest test for European nations is this issue of Ukraine and that is why it is my number one priority as Foreign Secretary and something that this government is giving so much effort and thought and resources to.

    But of course it’s not the only threat and it’s not the only issue that NATO has to face in terms of what is next. we face an incredibly dangerous and difficult and disputation relational world with so many conflicts. We have the instability in the Middle East instability in Africa, more conflicts in Africa than perhaps we’ve had for the last 40 years.

    And of course, we had a timely reminder last week with the issue of Chinese, the cyber attacks on great hardware blocks, that we face threats, not only in terms of the Russian threat, but also the threat that we face, instability to our South and in the Indo-Pacific reaching into our own region. NATO has a role to play in addressing all of those threats. The UK is determined to support all the NATO strategies in dealing with those threats.

    The final point I wanted to make is, what will determine the success or failure of NATO? There are some simple, Treasury-like technical answers to that: success will depend on more and more countries reaching 2% or more countries seeing 2% as a floor and not a ceiling and we have seen such great progress there.

    A large part of the answer will be how capable NATO is of modernising all our armed forces and making sure their compatibility interoperability. A lot of NATO success will depend on when we make Ukraine a member, with its professional and capable armed forces.

    But I would say the biggest determinant of success or failure goes back to what I said at the start: I grew up believing in NATO because it had a relevance to my life. If you came of age politically in the 1980s, you could see the importance of the solidarity that NATO brought, you could see the importance of the strong defence that kept Europe and Britain safe. But can we actually say that, about future generations, you haven’t grown up with that knowledge but have grown up in a different situation?

    And I think we have to win the argument for NATO all over again with a new generation. A generation that can see yes, the threat from Russia. We need to go back to a foundational argument, which is this, that fundamentally the greatness of NATO is that it allows countries to choose their own future.

    When I looked at my colleagues from Latvia, Lithuania Estonia, when I look at Radek Sikorski from people whose countries who chose to join NATO after the fall of the Iron Curtain, NATO membership is really what gave them the ability to make a choice about the sort of country they would be and the values they would follow.

    That’s an incredibly strong values-based argument that a younger generation can understand and see. I just think the one figure to back it up: when the Iron Curtain fell, Poland recovered its ability to govern itself and its economy was 3 times the size of that of Belarus; today it’s 10 times the size.

    There’s no reason why Ukraine is so many times poorer than Poland, very similar countries, very similar parts of the world. It’s the ability NATO gives to allow countries to choose to be democracies, to choose to have rights and to choose to have the rule of law, to adopt an open-market trading system and form those sorts of relations with other countries.

    That’s the argument I think we need to make today and that is the argument that can help us to win all over again the backing for NATO, that it will need, as we ask our publics to fund and support the defence budgets and NATO budgets, as we ask NATO to do more, not just in supporting what we’re doing in UKR but also supporting what we need to do in a more unstable and more unsafe words.

    So I feel more confident as a 57 year-old supporting a 75 year-old that I’m backing a winner: it’s been a winner for 75 years, it’s been it’s been the most successful defensive alliance in the history of the world and if we back it financially, and back it in its expansion and also back it with values-based arguments, there’s no reason it won’t continue have another 75 years of extraordinary success.

  • Keir Starmer – 2024 Statement Condemning Israeli Attack on Aid Workers

    Keir Starmer – 2024 Statement Condemning Israeli Attack on Aid Workers

    The statement made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 2 April 2024.

    Reports of the death of British nationals – among others from World Central Kitchen – in an Israeli strike on Gaza are horrifying. Our thoughts are with the families of all of those killed.

    We condemn this strike. There must be a full investigation and those responsible must be held to account.

    Humanitarian workers put their lives in danger to serve others. Their deaths are outrageous and unacceptable – and it is not the first time aid workers have come under fire in Israel’s campaign. International law must be upheld and humanitarian workers must be protected so that they can deliver the aid that is so desperately needed.

    This war must stop now. Far too many innocent people have died in this conflict and more than a million are facing starvation. Labour repeats our call for an immediate ceasefire, the immediate release of all hostages and full humanitarian access into Gaza.

  • David Cameron – 2024 Statement on Aid Worker Deaths in Gaza

    David Cameron – 2024 Statement on Aid Worker Deaths in Gaza

    The statement made by David Cameron, the Foreign Secretary, on 2 April 2024.

    The news of the airstrike that killed World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers in Gaza is deeply distressing.

    These were people who were working to deliver life-saving aid to those who desperately need it.

    It is essential that humanitarian workers are protected and able to carry out their work.

    We have called on Israel to immediately investigate and provide a full, transparent explanation of what happened.

  • David Cameron – 2024 Speech at the Blue Belt Symposium

    David Cameron – 2024 Speech at the Blue Belt Symposium

    The speech made by David Cameron, the Prime Minister, on 29 February 2024.

    It is a huge pleasure to be with you on this day where we are celebrating yet another expansion of the Blue Belt.

    It is something I started as Prime Minister in 2014. I remember some very talented and committed environmental enthusiasts like Zac Goldsmith, Oliver Letwin, Richard Benyon coming and seeing me and telling me about this idea and getting really excited by the idea of what it could all mean. You have these sort of meetings and think, ‘will anything come out of it?’ And now when I look around and see what you have all achieved, it really is a great cause for celebration and so it is a real privilege to be with you and celebrate it tonight.

    There are 5 obvious things to say about why I’m so enthusiastic about it.

    Firstly, incomparably, it is the right thing to do. We all know the stress that our oceans are under. We all know problems of plastic, the problems of overfishing, the problems of deep-sea mining, the problems of over-extraction, we know all those problems.

    This isn’t the answer to all of them, but it is part of the answer. And it is such a brilliant answer. And, we know the oceans are responsible for 50% of the oxygen in our atmosphere and so it is undoubtably the right thing to do.

    My father used to say to me, “if you get involved in politics, always remember, it is never the wrong time to do the right thing”. Well, this is incomparably the right thing. And it is so good that we are all doing it together.

    The second is, it is beautifully simple.

    I’m a bit of country boy, I represented a rural seat in Oxfordshire for many years, and the idea of fallowing, leaving a field fallowed, to let the land get back some of the minerals, some of the goodness, some of things you need in order to have productive soil. Something we’ve done for ages, forever.

    And applying that principle to our oceans is such a simple concept. As I say, it won’t solve all the problems but giving a large part of our oceans a rest, a break, is so easy to get a hold of as a concept. It something we are doing, which the rest of the world is applauding. The United Nations have set a target that 30% of our oceans should have this break by 2030 and the Overseas Territories of Britain are certainly doing our bit. In fact, more than our bit.

    The third thing I love about it is that it is big and it is bold. We are not the biggest country in the world, we are the 6th largest economy in the world. Some of the Territories represented here – from Pitcairn to British Virgin Islands to Tristan da Cunha – are not the largest countries in the world either but what we have done is something amazing.

    This is the biggest Blue Belt in the world. On the planet. The biggest one that has ever been created. Between us, we’ve done something together that is absolutely world-beating and world-leading. And bigger than anybody.

    The fourth thing I wanted to say is this is such a good example of partnership.

    I know that sometimes the Overseas Territories can feel as though they are not as loved as they should be, they can sometimes feel that they don’t get all the attention they should get. I really want us to change that and I think we are changing. I think you’ve got an excellent minister in David Rutley, he is not here tonight he’s probably on one of the islands. He works so hard and has done so much to bring the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies together.

    I’m feeling pumped up about the Overseas Territories having just come back from a trip to the Falklands Islands, a wonderful place. There aren’t many places where a politician like me can go for a walk about and you have such a wonderful time and everybody is lovely to you, I thought ‘this is great, I can even come and live here’.

    Fifth and final thing, is this issue of legacy.

    Legacy for all of us. I’ve got 3 relatively young children. And they care about this issue on our planet, on our climate and what we are going to leave to our children, more than any other issue. And they are always quite rightly challenging me and others about what we are doing.

    There is no doubt that when the history books are written, about what we did to cut carbon in our atmosphere, what we did to make the green transition, what we did to move away from coal, there will be some good things we’ll be able to say and some things we’ll be less mad about.

    But there is no doubt that on this agenda, we’ll be able to say that Britain created, with the OTs, the biggest, the best, the boldest in terms of marine conservation and in terms of Blue Belt, in terms of giving our oceans, our seas, a break.

    I think that is something we can all be proud of. It is something to celebrate, it is something to think about. There are so many issues we discuss every day that we won’t even remember in ten, twenty years’ time. ‘Why did that minister resign, why was that scandal happening in parliament?’ Can’t remember any of them. But this we will remember, and we should remember it with pride.

    I want to thank everyone that has made this possible. All the organisations that have helped. But above all, the Overseas Territories that have helped bring this together, that have helped create this Blue Belt, and create this massive bonus for the environment, bonus for oceans and legacy for our children and grandchildren.

    Thank you very much indeed.

  • David Rutley – 2024 Speech on UK-US Fusion Energy ollaboration

    David Rutley – 2024 Speech on UK-US Fusion Energy ollaboration

    The speech made by David Rutley, the Minister for the Americas, Caribbean and the Overseas Territories, in Boston, the United States on 20 February 2024.

    Well, good evening. It’s great to be with all of you and it’s fantastic to be back at Harvard Business School.

    What you didn’t say was that it was a long time ago – several decades ago to be perfectly honest.

    And this amazing building, well, I seem to remember it perhaps being a car park or something at that particular moment in time and it’s great to see how things are moving forward in B School, but also more widely here in this super vibrant part of the US.

    When I arrived here in 1987 – it was a long time ago – Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were leaders of the UK and the US.

    Now for some of you in this room, that’s ancient history but it was a reality at the time and I was just checking out to make sure that all of the points in my really heavy speech here were fact-checked.

    But the highest-grossing single – if any of you know what a single was – that year, was ‘Walk Like an Egyptian’ by the Bangles.

    It was that long ago, but what that shows is, is that things might change but the constant is that the output from places like HBS and MIT here is just phenomenal.

    It is a great honour, genuinely, to be asked here today, particularly on this all-important subject of fusion.

    We’re very grateful for everything you’re doing to develop and to promote, publicise, fusion technology; pushing the very frontiers of science and bringing what was once science fiction, particularly back in those days, to the very cusp of reality today.

    It’s really exciting to speak to some of you about your plans and the collaboration that is going on between the UK and the US.

    You know, we face great challenges today – climate change and rapidly-evolving geopolitical events have brought home the importance of ensuring our energy security and finding energy super-sources which are affordable, reliable, and sustainable.

    In this context, the world-changing potential of nuclear fusion for helping solve these challenges could not be clearer.

    Not only that, but commercialising fusion presents significant economic opportunities as well.

    If we get this right, we could deliver global energy security and decarbonisation, while also delivering abundant energy and economic growth for all our communities.

    That is why the UK has been leading the way in moving fusion energy forward.

    From the Culham Centre in Oxfordshire, which has been at the cutting edge of fusion science for almost 60 years, to the UK-based companies like Tokamak, who are pioneering commercial fusion energy.

    And just a few weeks ago, we announced that the UK-based Joint European Torus fusion reactor achieved a world record for energy output. It produced high fusion power consistently for five seconds, resulting in a ground-breaking record of 69 megajoules, using a mere 0.2 milligrams of fuel.

    The UK Government also launched a refreshed Fusion Energy Strategy in October, outlining our vision to support the fusion sector through investment, upskilling, and of course, that vital international collaboration.

    It includes up to £650 million in investment for a new ‘Fusion Futures Programme’.

    This Programme will fund a number of initiatives, like a fuel cycle testing facility to support fusion commercialisation, and new premises for private fusion companies at the Culham Centre.

    Education and training will drive the future of fusion.

    That’s why this Programme will fund a Fusion Skills Centre, which will train over 2,200 people by working with businesses and universities to increase the number of apprentices and postgraduates working on fusion.

    It will also have a significant outreach programme, particularly targeting under-represented groups.

    As I’m sure you’ll appreciate, outreach here is absolutely vital. Public engagement and science communication should be central to our mission.

    Coming from a non-science background, I can sympathise with how science can seem mystifying to some, and recent years have shown the dangers of science misinformation.

    But all of us again must ensure that people understand fusion energy, its risks and of course, its opportunities.

    And after all, it is up to us to inspire and nurture the next generation of passionate fusion scientists, engineers, and communicators.

    But we cannot do this alone. Fusion is a global endeavour, and the realisation of fusion energy requires continued collaboration.

    This evening I have met of course Brits, but Americans and even some Canadians and others – we need to collaborate, both to accelerate commercialisation and  to reduce the cost of fusion energy development.

    Our Fusion Futures Programme aims to strengthen existing international collaborations, as well as exploring new opportunities to contribute globally.

    And of course, the US will be one of our most important allies in all of this – our countries continue to lead the world in scientific research, and are home to the majority of the world’s top 10 universities, including this hallowed institution.

    That is why in November, we launched a strategic partnership with the US to accelerate fusion energy demonstration and commercialisation.

    This new partnership builds on longstanding collaboration between our research institutions and private sectors and aims to deepen our commitment to working together to solve these difficult challenges.

    Through it, we want to advance collaborative efforts on technical challenges, supply chain building, skills development, and public engagement.

    Let me just conclude by saying that I’m sure there’s no doubt amongst us that the world needs fusion now more than ever.

    And it is only going to be through this collaboration that we realise the perpetual human dream of unlimited, clean energy for all.

    It is a huge priority on both sides of the Atlantic and, of course, for the world.

    Thank you so much.

  • Wayne David – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    Wayne David – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    The speech made by Wayne David, the Labour MP for Caerphilly, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for introducing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the time for it.

    This debate is important and timely. Although we have had only a few contributions, they have been significant and important. The hon. Member mentioned the Ashraf 3 camp in Albania, and although it is not entirely clear what has happened there it is important to note his point that the Inter-Parliamentary Union, for which I am on the executive of the British group, will be sending a delegation to Albania. I will make a point of making sure, as best I can, that the delegation raises the matter in its visit.

    At the start of my contribution, I make the point that the authoritarian and theocratic regime in Iran presents and presides over a reprehensible repressive state. As has been said, there is little real democracy in today’s Iran. At the beginning of March, there will be elections to the Iranian Parliament and the Assembly of Experts. As has been the case in the past, the Council of Guardians will prevent candidates standing whom the Supreme Leader does not approve. We expect that those who are blocked will be moderate and reforming candidates.

    The elections will rightly attract a great deal of attention, not least because they are the first to be held since the widespread protests in Iran following the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini. As I am sure many Members are aware, her death in September 2022 occurred in police custody after she had been arrested for not complying with strict Islamic dress code. Following her death, there were widespread protests across Iran for a number of months. They were cruelly repressed by the regime, but it is important to remember and to pay tribute to the many thousands of women and girls who were brave enough to take part. Indeed, I was proud to speak in an event in this House organised by the Azadi Network. Speakers were from all parties in this House, and they demonstrated a real solidarity, which all parties have clearly expressed, and I stress that that is so important. It was the House of Commons saying to the Iranian people, “We are with you.”

    The protests were subject to appalling brutality in Iran, meted out by the Iranian authorities. It is estimated that at least 20,000 people were detained, including many children. It is estimated, too, that more than 500 people were killed, and many more were seriously injured. The violence did not stop with the end of the demonstrations: there have been many allegations of torture and appalling treatment of detainees, including reports of sexual and gender-based violence against women, men and children.

    As has been said, Amnesty International has reported that Iranian security forces are guilty of using the most terrible sexual violence against people who are merely peaceful protesters. It is important to note the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke eloquently about the lack of human rights and pointed out the lack of religious freedom in today’s Iran.

    If the Iranian regime is repressive at home, it is guilty of aggression abroad. In fact, it is among the world’s foremost state sponsors of terrorism. Iran, through its so-called proxies, is guilty of helping to initiate violence across much of the middle east. Iran has supplied huge support to Hamas in Gaza. It has supplied and supported Hezbollah in Lebanon and is still doing so. In Iraq—including in Kurdistan—and in Syria, Iranian sponsored militants have attacked US forces. On Sunday, an Iran-backed group was responsible for a drone attack on a US military base in Jordan that resulted in the death of three American soldiers and the injury of many other people.

    As we all know, the Houthis, who again are closely linked to the Iranian regime, have been conducting missile and drone attacks on international shipping in the Red sea. Of course, the US and the UK have been undertaking surgical strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, and Labour is on record as supporting that proportionate action. Further afield, the Iranian regime has developed close links with Russia and has supplied a large number of drones that are being used in Ukraine, so there can be absolutely no doubt about the Iranian regime’s malign influence across the middle east and the world.

    On Tuesday, I raised Iran’s destructive activities across the globe with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), at FCDO questions. He indicated that the Foreign Secretary was in the region that day and holding meetings on the very issue. He also said that the Government were

    “working extensively with Jordan, Egypt, Qatar, Israel, Saudi Arabia and America.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 710.]

    I would be appreciative if the Minister indicated in his reply how those meetings went and how the ongoing discussions will proceed on this important issue.

    We are aware that Iran is active in this country. As a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Harrow East, said, the head of MI5 has previously referred to potential threats by Iran to kidnap or kill British or UK-based people. In 2015, the police discovered an Iranian-linked bomb factory in London. Since the beginning of 2022, Iranians have been responsible for at least 15 potential threats against British or UK-based individuals. That was recognised by a number of hon. Members in the Chamber.

    Earlier this week, The Times reported that a number of members of the Iranian diaspora who have spoken out against the Iranian regime have been warned by counter-terrorism police that they face an increased threat. It is also important to note that the Iranian authorities have been systematically targeting BBC Persian staff, intimidating their families in Iran as well as intimidating staff in this country. Since the protests in Iran in 2022, the BBC security team has reported that the risks to BBC Persian staff have “increased”. Because of those very real threats, I believe that the sanctions introduced, and the further ones announced, should be welcomed. I hope, however, that the Government will closely examine other ways in which pressure can be brought to bear on the appalling Iranian regime.

    One additional measure ought to be the total proscription of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I understand that there is ongoing debate in Government about this, but if they do not bring forward appropriate measures that would lead to a total ban of the IRGC in this country, Labour will do so if it forms a Government. If the Government do that now, Labour will support it. I hope that the Government will respond in a truly positive way.

    This has been an important debate with excellent contributions. This issue should unite all of us who believe strongly in democracy, freedom and human rights in this country and throughout the world.

  • Martyn Day – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    Martyn Day – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    The speech made by Martyn Day, the SNP MP for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate. The issue of freedom and democracy in Iran is a very important one, and I find myself commending him for his speech and agreeing with every point he made.

    As we have heard, the issue is really about a lack of democracy and a lack of freedom. Elections will of course be held on 1 March to Iran’s Parliament, but they can in no way can be considered free, fair or credible. It is more of a selection than an election, with the unelected, 12-strong Guardian Council having the power to approve candidates. With a track record of banning moderates and reformers from standing, it is no surprise that many candidates have already been disqualified. This body can also veto laws made by the Parliament.

    My litmus test for fair, free and credible democratic elections is: can any individual freely stand for election, can anyone vote in secret for any individual who is standing and can the sovereignty of the people be exercised by their representatives? Clearly, Iran fails on all those counts. The reality is that Iran is ruled as a totalitarian theocracy: it is not a democracy. Ultimate power rests in the hands of the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the unelected institutions under his control.

    Corruption persists across all levels, with powerful actors such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps operating beyond scrutiny. Media and civil society face restrictions hindering their role as independent watchdogs for ensuring transparency and accountability. The regime, as we have heard, is ruthlessly held in place by its intelligence and security force the IRGC and is supported by the wider apparatus of the state, including the judiciary, the Ministry of Intelligence, the police and others.

    Iranian authorities have extensively used Iran’s repressive machinery to censor discussion of these issues and persecute women, human rights defenders and anti-death penalty activists. Political activists who support democratic change have been particularly vulnerable to detention and death over many years, despite which the organised resistance, the People’s Mujaheddin Organisation of Iran—or MEK—have remained determined to establish a free democratic and secular republic, and I wish them every success with that struggle.

    The level of oppression and human rights abuses by the current regime in Iran is truly appalling and is getting worse. According to Freedom House, Iran has decreased its total global freedom status from a derisory 14 out of 100 in 2022 to 12 out of 100 last year. Freedom House gave Iran zero scores for most areas of fundamental rights including: the individual right to practice or express religion, faith or non-belief in public and private; free and independent media; the Government operating with openness and transparency; safeguards against corruption; the question of whether the freely elected head of Government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the Government; and fair and free elections.

    The UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran expressed alarm at

    “the disproportionate number of executions of members of minority communities, in particular the Baluch and Kurdish minorities”,

    and I share this concern. Last year, at least 864 people were executed, the highest figure since 2017. Any use of the death penalty is unacceptable to me and I believe this substantial increase reflects the regime’s inability to suppress the protests that have arisen.

    Women lack equality and face discrimination in both law and practice. Examples include a woman’s testimony in court being given half the weight of a man’s and unequal compensation for victims’ families. Women also face disparities in inheritance rights. The regime fails to protect women and children from sex trafficking while Iranians and migrant workers, especially from Afghanistan, are subject to forced labour and debt bondage.

    The reality is that some 88 million Iranians are effectively living in what is a state prison, otherwise known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. But it does not have to be that way and I applaud the courage and determination of those who have stood up to the regime and protested for the rights that we take for granted, and have done so at great risk to themselves.

    The ongoing uprising began in September 2022 with the arrest of a Kurdish Iranian girl in Tehran by the Tehran morality police for not veiling, after which she was brutally beaten, fell into a coma and tragically lost her life while in custody. That brutal killing of Mahsa Amini prompted widespread protests across Iran, with thousands of people demanding regime change for a secular democratic republic. The ongoing uprising has resulted in over 800 unlawful deaths, including of minors and women. Additionally, around 30,000 Iranians face cruel treatment in jails, including torture and sexual violence, highlighting the dire situation in Iran.

    Ultimately, Iran’s future must be decided by its own people, but given that they have virtually no avenues for reform, the people have no option but to resist, to demonstrate, to defend themselves, and to seek alternative forms of opposition. Iran has been witnessing a massive popular uprising—a call for freedom and democracy largely led by women and young people. I have heard it described by some as a revolution, and I hope it is a successful one. It has clearly rattled the Tehran regime and I believe this is partly behind the regime promoting and encouraging conflict outwith its borders as it seeks to dampen the momentum of the protests inside Iran while simultaneously rallying the regime’s own forces behind the Supreme Leader’s fundamentalist agenda.

    As we have heard, Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. This exporting of international terrorism by Iran cannot and will not be tolerated, nor should be its support for Russia in the war with Ukraine, use of cyber-attacks, or hostage-taking diplomacy, and I condemn the involvement of Iranian officials in the killing of US servicemen. According to reports in The Times on Tuesday this week:

    “Tehran has already been accused by MI5 and police of more than a dozen assassination and kidnap plots in Britain against dissidents and media organisations in the past two years. Officials have previously expressed fears that, emboldened by the situation in the Middle East, Iran could ramp up its activity in the UK and present a wider terror threat.”

    Although I welcome the recent announcement of additional sanctions on senior Iranian officials, I wonder why we are not taking an even stronger approach. At a minimum, we should urgently proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. I have lost count of the number of times that I and others have called for that action. Proscription would be a tangible step in the UK in the furtherance of freedom and democracy in Iran. We should also support calls for the UN to dispatch international observers to visit Iran’s prisons and to meet those detained by the regime. We should all support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. I pay tribute to the work of the resistance units that emerged in late 2017 and have helped inspire Iranians to defy the prevailing tyranny.

    In conclusion, the SNP stands in full solidarity with Iranians journalists, women, men and young people calling for democratic change. The bravery of Iranian citizens standing up against brutality and dictatorship is beyond inspiring. I wish them every success in seeking a new democratic and secular republic in Iran. It will be better for them and the world when they succeed.

  • Jim Shannon – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    Jim Shannon – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on setting the scene. His passion and interest in this subject is renowned. In my short time in the House, I cannot remember a time when he did not lead or sponsor such debates. It seems that for various reasons, others who wished to speak have not been able to. It is unfortunate that the input of others has been curtailed, but that does not lessen the importance of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. When it comes to Iran, we in this place have spoken up on many occasions; indeed, we did so yesterday in the free Iran group with Maryam Rajavi. The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) was at that meeting, and led and chaired it for a short period of time.

    This is a big issue—a massive issue. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, speaking up for those of Christian faith, those of other faiths and those of no faith. It is clear to me that that is not just about people’s right to express themselves religiously and the beliefs that they have, but about standing up for human rights. The issue of freedom and democracy in Iran, especially the freedom of religion or belief, continues to escalate—depressingly so. That is why this debate is so important. Violations of freedom of religion or belief happen frequently in Iran, and continue to escalate. The hon. Member for Harrow East is right to highlight the danger that Iran poses to peace in the middle east: it supplies the Houthis with aid and finance, supplies Hezbollah in Lebanon with finance and weapons, supplies Hamas in Gaza with aid, arms and finance, and supplies many terrorist groups in Syria in the same way. Of course, Iran also supplies drones to Russia to use against Ukraine, so it is an instigator of war and an opposer of peace in the middle east.

    As persecution and violations of religious freedom increase in frequency and impact, I and other members of the APPG have submitted several written questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place, because he is always helpful in his responses. We have written to the FCDO with a large number of questions over a period of time, but unfortunately, responses have not been forthcoming. I ask the Minister to introduce some speed into the process, if possible, to secure an answer within the prescribed time: the FCDO said it would respond to our questions, and is duty bound to do so, but has not responded yet. The incidents we have highlighted and the FCDO’s response to them must be brought to Parliament’s attention, as well as the importance of developing better policies and sanctions against Iran for those actions and for its denial of freedoms and democracy.

    The one thing that has always bothered me when it comes to Iran is its violations against women and children. They have been attacked, brutalised, and scarred by acid attacks, they have no access to jobs, education or ownership of property, they do not have the right to marriage, and many other opportunities in society are denied them. Over Christmas, several Christians were arrested in Iran, with no response yet from the FCDO—again, we are waiting for a response. Iran finally released on temporary bail two journalists who covered the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, which led to the mass protests in 2022. We asked the FCDO whether the Minister would make an assessment of the implications of those releases for its policies, but as yet, there has been no response.

    Recently, the Iranian Government displaced Baha’i farmers by seizing farmland that they had been tending for several generations. The FCDO responded to my question on that topic by stating:

    “At the 78th UN General Assembly, we co-sponsored the Iran Human Rights Resolution, calling for Iran to eliminate, in law and in practice, all forms of discrimination on the basis of thought, conscience, religion or belief. We are committed to promoting religious freedom and will continue to work with partners to advocate for the rights of the Baha’i community in Iran.”

    Such action is commendable and appreciated. What actions have been taken to help implement that resolution?

    Again, I ask these questions because I know the Minister will respond; I also look forward to the response of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), and of the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day). The UK recently enacted new sanctions against Iranian individuals for human rights violations, including flogging as a punishment for exercising freedom of religion or belief. Roya Heshmati was flogged by police for not wearing a hijab in a picture posted on her social media— I have also posed a question to the FCDO on that topic. What sanctions have been imposed on those who inflict such persecution?

    Most importantly, potential violence and armed conflict with other countries may impact the rights of democracy and freedom, especially for religious minorities in Iran, so we must decide what policies are going to be enacted. Iranian-backed groups have attacked a US base in Jordan, and this brings about the increase of tensions between the west and Iran, despite Iran’s denial of its involvement in the attack—it got its proxies to carry out it out. As armed conflict and violence increase, the oppression of religious minorities increases tenfold. For someone to be a Shi’a, a Baha’i, a Christian or a member of an ethnic minority in Iran decreases their life expectancy.

    We must be ever mindful of the situation of religious minorities in Iran, but also of what the potential effect may be of UK actions against Iran through sanctions and changes in diplomatic relations. The hon. Member for Harrow East made a point about what we need to do and to do more of, and it is quite clear that the sanctions the Government are imposing are not effective. Because of that, we have to look at other methods, such as stronger sanctions or other ideas. Again, I would like to hear from the Minister, if possible, what thoughts he has about how we can hit Iran harder.

    Iran is continuing to arbitrarily detain human rights defender and 2023 Nobel peace prize recipient Narges Mohammadi, subjecting her to torture and other ill treatment by deliberately denying or severely delaying her access to adequate healthcare to coerce her into adhering to Iran’s abusive and degrading compulsory veiling laws. This places Narges Mohammadi’s health at great risk, particularly as she has serious heart and lung conditions. Jail is never good for someone’s health, and if they are in bad health, it is even worse.

    If Iran is willing to imprison and mistreat such an individual, what is to prevent it from doing so with ordinary individuals in Iran who have religious identities or beliefs different from those of the majority? Although we may not be able to force Iran to change its laws, we can place further requirements on their doing trade with the UK. When we look at trade last year, we see that the UK exported nearly £224 million of trade to Iran, and in return Iran sold back some £190 million. What regulations and policies are companies required to adhere to for such trade to occur? Are there any human rights and religious freedom requirements in place, or inspections of companies in Iran to ensure that they adhere to human rights working conditions and do not discriminate against religious minorities in hiring or in the workplace? These are the things I would like to see.

    I conclude with this: the need for Iran to raise its treatment of religious minorities and to provide citizens with democracy is becoming more and more necessary. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s debate today is so important, and we hope—we look to everyone for this, but ultimately to the Minister—that the response will be one that gives us heart. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak today on behalf of my brothers and sisters in the faith in Iran, who do not have the opportunity to worship their God as I do. It is for that reason that I thought I had to be here to speak for them.

  • Bob Blackman – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    Bob Blackman – 2024 Speech on Freedom and Democracy in Iran

    The speech made by Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP for Harrow East, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2024.

    I beg to move,

    That this House condemns unreservedly the actions of the government of Iran and the violent conduct of the police in suppressing protests in that country; is deeply concerned over Tehran’s growing use of terrorism, espionage, cyber attacks and hostage-taking diplomacy to restrict and eliminate the Iranian democratic opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), targeting in particular members of the organised opposition, PMOI (MEK), in Ashraf 3, Albania and NCRI gatherings since 2018; notes that the resistance is struggling for the establishment of a secular democratic republic; calls on European governments, especially the government of Albania, to counter Tehran’s illegal activities and uphold the rights of members of the Iranian opposition PMOI (MEK) at Ashraf-3 in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention, the European Convention of Human Rights and international law; is further concerned by reports of threats made to Iranian dissidents in the UK; urges the Government to include Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the list of proscribed terrorist organisations; and further calls upon the Government to work with international counterparts to ensure that further sanctions are placed on Iran without delay and Iran is held to account for its illegal activities at home and abroad.

    I thank the Speakers-collect and the Backbench Business Committee for the various arrangements that had to be made because of this afternoon’s emergency business.

    I am truly horrified by the current situation in Iran, which was sparked by the brutal murder of a young girl by the authorities while she was in police custody. Her crime—if we could call it a crime—was merely wearing her hijab in a manner that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps determined to be too loose. I thank Mr Speaker in particular for allowing me on a number of occasions to debate this issue in the House. However, I wish this debate had taken place under different circumstances and that by now our Government had taken decisive action to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety.

    The urgency for this charge is now more relevant than ever. Not only does the human rights situation in Iran remain dire, but the uncertainty around the middle east, which is spreading further afield at a rapid rate, is predominantly driven by the funding and support from this exceptionally threatening, conniving and deceitful regime.

    Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Iranian people are locked in a vital struggle for justice, democracy and particularly equality, and that that struggle must go on until the oppression of women in Iran and the use of sexual violence as a means of doing so stop?

    Bob Blackman

    I thank my hon. Friend—she must have looked at the next section of my speech. The IRGC literally runs and rules Iran, disregarding democracy, freedom of expression and basic human rights. The majority of people live in fear of speaking out or engaging in political matters in any form, with vigorous covert intelligence deployed to all parts of the country, seeking to sift out any potential opposition that might pose a threat to the regime.

    The authorities censor all media, jamming satellite TV channels and filtering and blocking social media platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube. Further, the authorities shut off or disrupt the internet and mobile phone networks, particularly during protests, in order to suppress mobilisation and hide from civilians the sheer scale of the violations and privacy breaches committed by the security forces. In attempting to justify the infringements, the IRGC is even trying to push an internet user protection Bill through the Parliament in Iran. That legislation would further erode online freedoms and people’s access to the global internet.

    All opposition in Iran, whether it is independent political parties, trade unions, striking workers, protesters, civil society organisations or simply truth-sharing journalists, is brutally suppressed. There has never been a clearer example of an undemocratic self-claimed democracy. Political opposition frequently receives the harshest treatment from the regime, and Iran is the country responsible for the second highest number of executions each year, behind only China. Whatever people’s views on capital punishment, it cannot be acceptable that that position persists.

    The House will no doubt recall the uprising that took place in September 2022, sparking nationwide protests that continue even today. I take this opportunity to honour the bravery of those people. It cannot be easy for anyone to stand up and speak for basic rights when there is a high likelihood that they or their family will be brutally targeted as a result. Following the riots, the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, Javaid Rehman, raised the alarm about the concerning trend of arbitrary arrests, detentions and executions targeting individuals for merely exercising their freedom of expression.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    The hon. Member is making a brilliant speech. The dead hand of Iran is, unfortunately, everywhere; its influence and impact is incredible, and I would suggest that it is even in this place. There is an all-party parliamentary group whose secretariat is BIRD—the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy. That is led by a man, Sayed Al-Wadaei, who was outed as a front leader for the promotion of Iranian foreign policy. In 2012, a man called Saeed Al-Shehabi was exposed by the London Evening Standard as part of a terrorist group with links to Iran. That organisation and those people are part of a secretariat to an APPG here, and that needs to be exposed and Members need to take action.

    Bob Blackman

    I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. That is now clearly on the record, and the House authorities will need to look at that particular issue.

    Recently released figures, which I am sure will have been generously tainted by the regime, show that 870 executions took place in 2023 alone. That is a 30% increase on the previous year, and many of those people were women and children. Tens of thousands of political prisoners, the overwhelming majority being peaceful, have been arrested in Iran—arrested for merely holding a sign or removing a headscarf. Once arrested, their treatment is utterly unfathomable. Amnesty International has recently reported that the atrocities such prisoners are subjected to include being beaten, raped, gang raped and psychologically abused; the list of horrors goes on. It is truly despicable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) said.

    The plight of women remains intensely troubling. Women remain second-class citizens in Iran: they continue to receive intensified opposition from the regime; they face entrenched discrimination in both law and practice; and they are subject to domestic violence, child marriage, unequal divorce and custody rights, mandatory dress code, restricted nationality and travel rights, and unfair inheritance laws—to name but a few examples. Women in Iran have been jailed for merely singing in public or publishing their work on social media.

    Perhaps even more troublingly, Iran celebrates the greatest number of female executions, beating even China on that particular front. Armita Geravand was a 16-year-old schoolgirl, who was tragically killed through the brutality of the so-called Iranian morality police. Like Mahsa Amini, her only crime was refusing to wear her hijab. Sadly, such stories are not isolated in Iran, and I am sad to say that they will continue without significant intervention from international communities and the Iranian people.

    I am proud that in this House alone, we have an abundance of great women representing us; their contribution is vital and championed by us all. It is shocking that, in 2024, this is far from the case across many other parts of the globe.

    Anna Firth

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He is making an absolutely brilliant, first-class speech, and shining a light on the despicable, brutal regime in Iran. Does he agree that that brutal regime is literally on an execution spree at the moment, having executed more than 350 protesters and dissidents since the conflict in Gaza began? That is a rate of execution of not far off 100 protesters per month. Does he agree that it is long overdue that the UK and our partners demand that the UN Human Rights Council dispatch an international fact-finding mission to Iran to visit the regime’s prisoners—to meet political prisoners and detained protesters—so that, globally, we can finally shine a light on what is happening in Iran? And, of course, he is right that the IRGC should be proscribed.

    Bob Blackman

    I thank my hon. Friend—that was almost a speech rather than an intervention!

    I have had the privilege on a number of occasions to visit Ashraf 3, which is home to some 2,700 Iranian refugees. The museum on the site exceptionally depicts the long struggle that people have endured, with brutal attacks and massacres occurring all too frequently. In Albania, the regime’s claws continue to menace the people. The IRGC has repeatedly targeted the Albanian Government through cyber-attacks, disinformation and terror attacks. I am saddened that, on occasion—most notably in June last year—the camp has been raided by the Albanian police forces. There have been reports of unjustified force and copious amounts of pepper spray being used. Unfortunately, one man died from the injuries that he suffered. I am almost certain that that attack was founded on false claims generated by the IRGC.

    The regime holds a power over Albania. Its continued attacks on cyber-systems are used as so-called warnings to the Government, blackmailing them with threats of continued attacks if they do not suppress the rights of camp members. I urge the Albanian Government to stand up to those threats. No country should infringe its morals for fear of such a corrupt and wicked enemy. This is a time for western allies to stick together and stand up to malicious terror acts. I am glad that our Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation will be going to Albania shortly, and I hope that they will raise this issue.

    The Albanian Prime Minister has said publicly that residents of Ashraf 3 should not engage in any political activity—even peaceful conversation. That is tantamount to denying the right to freedom of expression. I am saddened that that announcement came after a show of support for the camp by Albanian parliamentarians, showing that the dramatic shift in opinion must be down to the negotiations with the IRGC. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he will offer support to our Albanian counterparts, encouraging them to stand up to the regime and protect the rights of those in that camp, who have already experienced too much brutality.

    This debate comes at a time when the world has never been so unsafe. We have a war raging in Europe, attacks by the Houthis in the Red sea, an illegal war in Gaza by the Hamas terror group, Hezbollah in Lebanon and war in Syria, as well as other dangerous militant groups. The one thing that links all those examples is the IRGC, which stands as the head of the snake, funding, training and supplying weaponry to all those organisations. Its outreach and capabilities are frankly frightening.

    The IRGC has been found to have supplied drones and weapons to Russia as Moscow and Tehran deepen their co-operation in a partnership that is likely to continue and intensify as they commonly seek to weaken the west. Furthermore, the IRGC provided significant direct funding and training to Hamas in the lead-up to the dreadful 7 October attacks. Most recently, the Houthis in Yemen have targeted shipping lanes in the Red sea. The Houthi militant group was set up by Iran and remains under its influence. Linked to those attacks, Iran announced that it had subsequently launched into low-earth orbit three satellites that the US believes can be used to more accurately target intercontinental ballistic missiles.

    The regime in Iran ignites a threat not only to the international community, but, perhaps most concerningly, to the domestic security of the UK. Individuals with Iranian links, or who have spoken out against the IRGC in this country, have frequently been targeted. Furthermore, MI5 announced last year that it had intercepted a significant number of Iran-backed terror attacks.

    Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)

    The hon. Member is making an incredibly powerful speech, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. He is quite right: last year, we heard from the director general of MI5 and the head of counter-terrorism policing that they had intervened to disrupt up to 15 kidnapping and assassination attempts in the UK coming from Iran. That is why the argument for proscription is such a powerful one. It would not be merely symbolic; it would be about granting the security services and police forces in the UK additional powers to truly dismantle any foothold that the IRGC has in the UK that allows it to facilitate those assassination attempts, which we must close down. Does he agree that that is why proscription is so important?

    Bob Blackman

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. The position here is that the Iranian Government are funding professional gangs to inflict attacks and violence on individuals in this country. They have neither mercy nor morals in how far they will go. A Spanish politician and vocal opponent of the Iranian regime was shot outside his home by a criminal gang employed by the IRGC. We must not allow such despicable attacks to occur on domestic soil. It is completely unacceptable that people in this country are being followed home or having to suppress their freedom of expression for fear of being targeted. I urge the Government to tackle this issue with urgency.

    The Iranian authorities have been targeting BBC Persian staff, who are predominantly based in the UK, and their families since 2009 in an attempt to intimidate them into stopping their work as journalists. The intimidation escalated in 2017 and has been at an unprecedented level since September 2022. BBC Persian staff frequently receive credible death threats, threats of horrific violence, thousands of abusive comments and increased threats to their personal safety on online platforms.

    With several colleagues, I was a target of the Iranian regime when we attended the annual gathering of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, with delegations from almost every major democracy, back in 2016. An Iranian diplomat tried to bomb the conference. He had the audacity to smuggle the bomb through security in diplomatic bags. Thankfully, the Belgian and French authorities apprehended the terrorist and no one was harmed. Had he succeeded, there would have been a world war.

    The Iranians assumed responsibility, and they forced the Belgian authorities to hand over this despicable so-called diplomat after they kidnapped two Belgian journalists and held them as hostages. If this does not highlight to the Government that we cannot engage in dialogue with the Iranian regime, I do not know what will. The key point is that the current policy on Iran is not working. Its influence is stretching across the middle east and further. It is time to look for an alternative solution, and I urge the Government to proscribe this merciless regime with utmost priority.

    I am aware that we have already sanctioned individuals, but we must go further. Until we start cracking down on the IRGC, it will continue to extort and suppress innocent people. Its military capacity is growing and, even if it does not already possess a nuclear capability—I have my doubts—its nuclear capability will also grow.

    The international community must wake up and protect countries such as Israel by killing the initial piece of the chain. Without funding and support from Iran, terrorists like Hamas will not be able to carry out their dreadful attacks. Iran will feel the pinch only if there is full proscription, and I reiterate my plea for the Government to do so. Hezbollah is already proscribed, and it is the birthchild of the IRGC. The IRGC must therefore be proscribed, too.

    I have heard the rumours that the Government are holding off such action in order to continue a line of dialogue, but there is no honest or trustworthy dialogue to be had with this terrorist regime. Instead, we must show Iran that such action is not and will not be tolerated. Fifty per cent. of the IRGC’s training efforts are on indoctrination, creating more ruthless, more radical and more committed generations. The dangers are only increasing, so we must act before it is too late.

    It is high time that we work together to banish this unlawful regime, to protect innocent protestors and to champion free democratic rights across the world—we often take those rights for granted. To oppose the Iranian regime is no longer a political calculation but a simple humanitarian choice. We must support the Iranian people and acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iranian opposition if we are ever to see a free and democratic Iran.

    I look forward to hearing from colleagues on both sides of the House. I know that several Members who wanted to take part in this debate have unfortunately had to leave, but I hope we will have excellent replies from my hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, the shadow Minister.