To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of human rights abuses in Iran.

My Lords, a week ago today, Mr Mohammad Larijani, the secretary-general of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, told a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva:

“Iranian society is a successful model of brotherly and amicable coexistence”.

He was almost alone at the meeting in believing this. Here is what others said. The French ambassador, Jean-Baptiste Mattei, said:

“The authorities are waging bloody repression against their own people, who are peacefully claiming their rights … France recommends that Iran accepts the creation of a credible and independent international inquiry mechanism to shed light on these violations”.

The United States and Britain called on Iran to open up visits by the UN investigator into torture, as well as by other human rights experts who have been barred from the country since 2005.

“Grave human rights violations continue to be committed”,

said the British ambassador, Peter Gooderham.

Mr Michael Posner, the US assistant secretary for democracy and human rights, said that Washington,

“strongly condemns the recent violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens”.

Western nations said collectively at that meeting of the Human Rights Council that they wanted to see a halt in the execution of child offenders, in the disproportionate use of the death penalty against political opponents, in violence against women, in discrimination, and in the clampdown on free speech.

The facts deny Mr Larijani’s claim, and the appalling human rights record of the mullahs’ regime has been condemned by the United Nations on 57 separate occasions. His country hangs more people than all the other countries put together that still use capital punishment, except China. Since the 1979 revolution, more than 120,000 political prisoners have been executed and 600,000 tortured. Officially allowed torture includes the amputation of limbs without anaesthetic, the gouging out of eyes with a spoon-like instrument, and the stoning to death of both women and men.

A year ago last month, 59 people were hanged, including a 35 year-old woman after 12 years on death row in Rafsanjan prison. In September and October last year, 15 male and four female prisoners were hanged. Iran has also hanged the highest number of children in the world, and now has about 70 awaiting the rope. It is hard to imagine, but human rights abuses have worsened since the stolen presidential elections of June 2009. The anger of millions who protested about that has now turned into demands for an end to absolute clerical rule, and for democracy and human rights.

On 11 February, when the mullahs organised a rally to mark the anniversary of their 1979 takeover, more than 70,000 security personnel, including the corrupt Revolutionary Guard, stood watch. Some 500 pro-democracy demonstrators were arrested in one district of Tehran alone. They taunted security officers with shouts such as, “The uprising will continue”, and, “You can’t make the country a garrison forever”. The speech of phoney president Ahmadinejad was greeted with shouts of, “Down with the dictator”, and “End absolute clerical rule”. A crowd of 10,000 marched on the notorious Evin prison demanding the release of political prisoners. There were protests in other parts of the country. More than 60 journalists are among several hundreds awaiting mass show trials.

Doubtless, as evidence of Larijani’s claim of brotherly and amicable co-existence, the mullahs have decreed that those demanding democracy and human rights are guilty of waging war on God—“mohareb”—because of their support for the PMOI, the main opposition group inside the coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. On 28 January, two men were executed for waging war on God and at least 10 others have been found guilty on the same charge. The Guardian reported on 4 February that the Foreign Office was urgently seeking information on reports that a 24 year-old with joint British-Iranian nationality was among 16 people on trial. What response, if any, has there been from Iran on this?

A surprising aspect of the demonstrations in December and since has been the regime’s acknowledgement that the PMOI has been leading them. For years, the regime has denied the PMOI’s existence and derided any support it claimed inside the country. On 29 January, no less a figure than Ahmad Jannati, head of the powerful though unelected Guardian Council, said that,

“those who try to shatter the structure [of the regime] … and enemies of the revolution who intend to topple [it] … must not be treated with compassion. There can be no room for mercy; it is now time for toughness”.

On 18 January, Mr Salavati, the mullah’s prosecutor in Tehran, said that,

“Since the core of the PMOI has not been eradicated, Article 186 of the Islamic Punishment Act would still apply to the PMOI”.

In accordance with this article,

“As long as the core of that organisation remains in place, all of its members and supporters … are mohareb”—

that is, enemies of God. Overall, in the course of the demonstrations following that stolen election, it has been estimated that more than 10,000 people have been arrested with many facing torture in prison.

On 17 February, the UN Human Rights Council said Iran had rejected calls for the release of all political prisoners and refused to accept an international inquiry into the recent violence. It also refused to end the death penalty and said it would not make torture an offence under its laws. It also refused entry to the country to the UN special investigator on torture. Other recommendations by the council included the ending of discrimination against women and stopping the harassment of journalists and bloggers.

We should not seek to interfere in Iran, despite the human rights abuses. It is for Iranians to find their own way to democracy and respect for human rights. Yet we should make clear that we applaud those millions bravely demanding democracy so that they know that they do not stand alone. We need to tighten economic sanctions until the regime ends its nuclear defiance and ceases torture and executions. As former Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Chilcot inquiry on 29 January,

“the nature of the Iranian regime makes me even more worried about the prospect of them with a nuclear device”.

That worries me as well.

My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend on securing this timely debate. We do not have as many opportunities for considering the situation in Iran as that situation deserves, and he is to be very much congratulated on this. My purpose in intervening is not to produce a list of human rights abuses; we have done that time and again, in meetings in this Palace and in debates. It has been done so often that it is almost pointless to repeat it—the repression, the torture, the killing of children and the discrimination against women. As my noble friend said, the situation in Iran has been condemned by human rights bodies of the United Nations 57 times. I find it very difficult to catch up, because every time we have a figure for the number of times that it has been condemned, the figure is already out of date, because it increases again with the next meeting.

Condemnation does not seem to be working. The Revolutionary Guards and the mullahs are indifferent to world opinion and impervious to argument. The question that we might consider is what the international community can do. The charter of the United Nations had much to say about human rights, but did not spell out any specific sanction. It was a different world, so the question of sanctions was felt to be unnecessary. Everyone felt that, once something was put to the test before a tribunal established by the charter, that would be sufficient; it would be respected—as it would be by almost every other regime in the world. However, that does not work here. At that time there was an overwhelming feeling that the governing factor was national sovereignty. It was felt that what went on within the borders of a nation was between the Government and the people: that it was not the business of the rest of us and we should not be interfering. That is all right if the people are not silenced, but when they are not in a position to participate in the discussion and when every attempt to protest meets with brutal repression, it can hardly be said that this is a matter between the Government and the people. We saw on 11 February that the people of Iran are crying out for change, but their protest was brutally repressed.

The question still arises of what the international community can now do, given that Article 2.7 of the charter of the United Nations emphasises that what goes on within the borders of a nation are peculiar to that nation. One thing that we should be doing is revise the charter, because we know now the importance of international opinion in maintaining the almost universal standards incorporated in the charter and the subsequent human rights covenants. But there are two possibilities, of which my noble friend mentioned one.

The first possibility that springs to mind is military intervention, although that is not something that I would seek to recommend, as it would do more harm than good to those who are already the victims of the infringements, and would probably not achieve anything at the end of the day, because what would be left would be a wilderness.

My noble friend suggests economic sanctions. I hope to see our Government recommending economic sanctions at the Security Council, but they would have to be selective. What we would not want to see are sanctions that would make worse the poverty that already exists in Iran where 85 per cent of the population are living below starvation level.

I know there seems to be plenty of time, but those speaking in the gap should keep their remarks to under four minutes, if possible.

I am most grateful. There is the possibility of oil sanctions, which would impinge on the mullahs but would not necessarily make worse the poverty of the people. It would be an enormous benefit to the morale of the people of Iran to know that the world is on their side. We have tended to be mealy-mouthed on this subject. I would like to see something much more forthright from our Government.

My Lords, the regime in Iran is as evil as any regime can be. It is of the most obnoxious kind. Next month, we celebrate International Women’s Day. The brave women and girls of Iran, who face up to the mullahs day by day, are a shining example to us all. I hope that they will be remembered on International Women’s Day. Our Government must bravely oppose this regime. It is obvious that it is anathema to the majority of the Iranian people.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a timely debate. I wish to raise the relationship of Iran and the United Nations Human Rights Council. We are now in a somewhat surreal situation, but we should remind ourselves that human rights abuses did not start with the mullahs and the Islamic Republic. The last days of the shah were also pretty grisly, and when two opposition activists were executed a few weeks ago, it was a reminder of what happened then.

It is possible that Iran may soon be elected as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council because the Islamic Republic is a candidate as part of the Asian regional group. That council is, among other things, charged with making recommendations about human rights violations. As my noble friend said, on 15 February Iran was subject to a periodic review of its human rights record and showed the importance it attaches to that body by sending a large delegation headed by Mohammad Larijani, the brother of the Speaker of the Majlis. If Iran were to be elected in May, it would have serious implications for the credibility of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which is already, and quite properly, assailed from a number of directions. I understand that there are currently five candidates for the four places on the Asian regional group: Qatar, Malaysia, Thailand, the Maldives and Iran. There is, as yet, no indication that any one of the other four will withdraw but, if one were to withdraw, Iran would be elected automatically. It is clearly an important objective of the Islamic Republic to be so, and it is said that it is bringing pressure on at least one of those countries to withdraw its candidature. Thus, we are in a remarkable position. Iran is currently in the dock, alongside other malefactors such as Burma and North Korea, because since 2005 it has excluded all UN rapporteurs investigating human rights violations. Yet it is now, at least possibly, on the verge of becoming a member of the council.

Fairly recently, about three years ago, I had the privilege of meeting Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize. She is now calling for the creation of a UN special rapporteur for Iran. Finally, would my noble friend, when he responds for the Government, indicate the current situation in respect of Iran’s candidature and the prospects of Iran succeeding and therefore becoming a member of the UN Human Rights Council?

My Lords, will my noble friend say how the Government see the connection—

My Lords, the noble Lord should have put his name down in the gap. We have another gap speaker to go who has signified that he will speak.

I made some inquiries earlier and did not know that I had to put my name down.

It should be signified to the speakers in the debate and to the Chair. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord King of West Bromwich, could say his few words—I remind him to keep to three minutes—before the noble Lord.

My Lords, I thank you for allowing me some time. There is no doubt about what is happening in Iran. It has been going on for so many years, with so many people suffering, that the catalogue is endless. The recent report of 17 February by the Human Rights Council clearly said that Iran rejects all calls to release all political prisoners or to accept an international inquiry into the recent violence. It also refused to end the death penalty and said that it will not make torture an offence, so personally I cannot see what else people would want to see to condemn this regime without any conditions at all. We have already seen what is happening in Afghanistan when people have gone in there to help a democratic system. Iran is going even further than that in making life difficult for all Iranians who live there.

It is quite clear that appeasement is not going to work. I was listening to the television yesterday and I think that Mrs Thatcher, when Argentina was invading, said that dictators like those in Argentina never understand the word “appeasement”. She was totally right, and the same applies in this particular case. We should really try to put some sanctions in—not sanctions in name, but in a proper format—so that they can do something to help the Iranians. Obviously, we have also learnt, to our cost, that any military intervention in other countries seldom works. In the case of Iran, the opposition party and the people of Iran are really struggling to make their viewpoint known and are expecting some help from the outside world. The least that we can do is provide that help in sanctions and other measures that the UN should now take along with other countries, so that something can be done.

I congratulate my noble friend on his sustained campaign on human rights, but we are now drifting into a more and more intolerable relationship between internal human rights and the nuclear enrichment problem, with the American military more or less saying, “We will not intervene militarily, but we do not know what Israel will do”, and so on. It is very obvious that there is a vicious circle in which the regime can play the external threat alongside more and more internal repression. How does my noble friend the Minister—along with Russia, America, France and China, et cetera—see the relationship between nuclear non-proliferation, and all those other questions, and the need not to find ourselves in the worst of all possible worlds, where there is more and more internal repression? If there could be a revolution without other consequences, that would be one thing, but could my noble friend put the jigsaw together in some way, however difficult that might be?

The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, has most wonderfully provided us with an opportunity to discuss human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran today. We are all grateful to him for that.

I am absolutely sure that the situation worries anyone who has any knowledge of the region, and, for those of us who have many friends there, the situation is particularly poignant. Indeed, we in the United Kingdom have very high expectations of Iran to follow the ways of living, the cultural modalities and the diplomatic and civil society rights to which Iran has so successfully signed up over so many years. Iran is one of the most ancient of civilisations, and the UK has a magnificent history of co-operation in all aspects of life. Many citizens of the United Kingdom come from the Islamic Republic of Iran or from the Shah’s regime before then. Indeed, we have a large number of Persian-British citizens who talk about these issues almost daily whenever we meet them.

I must immediately put my cards on the table and say that I do not share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord King, about the possibilities of dialogue. Today, the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union, under the chairmanship of the European High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is discussing both the nuclear issue and political and human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Our position as a key member of the European Union must be this: that the EU must be willing to consider new restrictive measures against Iran unless it responds favourably to the international community’s offer of engagement on the nuclear issue, and at the same time be willing to seek a negotiated solution with Tehran. In other words, this is not the either/or situation to which the noble Lord, Lord King, has perhaps pinned his colours; this is a situation in which, as a key member of the European Union, we would very much prefer a negotiated solution.

Only a week or so ago, on 11 February, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who is also Vice-President of the Commission, declared:

“On the anniversary of the Islamic revolution, which for many in Iran should symbolise progress in fundamental freedoms and rights, the European Union notes with great concern that a large number of Iranians have been prevented from expressing their views”.

Earlier, under the Swedish presidency following the elections, the EU perhaps put on record our complete position:

“The EU reiterates its commitment to human rights and democratic values, not least freedom of expression and association. These are universal human rights, and the EU recalls that Iran has committed itself to these rights as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The EU deplores the violations of freedom of expression and freedom of the press—national as well as international—in connection with the events following elections day. Restrictions remain at an even higher level than before the elections”.

The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, has already made these points.

I also recall the statement by Robert Cooper, the General-Secretary of the Foreign Affairs Council, which is also how I see the situation:

“We urge Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement to meet the humanitarian needs of its people and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations. This remains our consistent objective”.

These are sad times when we think about human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Condemnation will not necessarily provide us with enough progress to resolve these issues. We need to remember when we talk about and contextualise common values that different points of reference arise in the thinking of those on the other side of the dialogue which bring in connotations quite different to those we intend. Perhaps background knowledge or bitter historical memories may arise. I recall briefing both the Islamic Council of Iran representative, Dr Larijani, when he first came to Brussels, and Javier Solana, the predecessor of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I felt concerned before they went into their dialogue that they were talking completely different languages. One great problem is that the Islamic Republic has been so isolated for so long and so far away in every single way. Eurospeak is not easy anyway, but even the language of human rights as we interpret them does not somehow bring in the same connotations and values that we identify.

A false understanding creates different judgments and breeds mistrust in a way that we do not wish it to. Mutual mistrust kills mutual understanding and culminates in exclusion of dialogue and the other, especially if an established, modern block, such as the European Union, wants to set up dialogue with a society which I might describe as in transition to modernity, and which also has in it confusing elements.

Human rights are common currency today in our dialogue. They and democracy are discussed absolutely everywhere. Elections and election monitoring happen everywhere. Yet in all the countries where I have monitored elections and discussed human rights, there is a different understanding. I believe strongly that certain components of human rights are absolutely fundamental, such as the right of freedom of expression or to practice whatever faith you wish freely. They are fundamental human rights to which all nations of the world have signed up, including the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yet their implementation is sometimes understood in different contexts. We have to understand more clearly the cultural identity of the people to whom those rights are being ascribed. In other words, we need to organise our approach towards the Islamic Republic of Iran to make it absolutely clear that we are not dictating. Rather, we are reminding both them and us of our shared cultural identity, which over many decades and generations has brought us closer together.

We believe in human rights, but a society in transition, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, may prefer to take our particular analysis of what is a human right in a completely different way. The vital thing now, if we are to avoid an absolute confrontation, is to go back to the table and try to work out some sort of context where dialogue can take place. We are discussing human rights in Iran at a time when mistrust between the Muslim world and the West is probably at its height—I hope it goes no higher. This is a difficult time. It is paramount upon us to open up these blocked channels of communication and start again. Britain has a special position: we are part of the European Union and we have the transatlantic alliance. Far from thinking that the time is now passed for proper dialogue and bridge-building internally and externally, it is never more important than now to try again.

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, for initiating this important debate today. Iran is not a country that can be easily caricatured. It is blessed with vast natural resources, the world’s fifth largest global oil reserve and an intelligent population with a long and impressive history and now with a thirst for change and development. Yet it has one of the worst human rights records, ranked 145 out of 167 in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index.

It is hard to know where to begin in the seemingly unending human rights abuses, with key issues including a total disregard for the right to life, the right to a fair trial, the rights to freedom of speech, religion and equality, the rights to freedom of assembly and expression and the prohibition of torture, to name but a few. There have been reports of extra-judicial killings, scores of civilian deaths during peaceful protests and of the rape, ill treatment and torture of prisoners in detention, many of whom have been detained without just cause, access to justice, medical care or their families.

All this is set to a backdrop of concern over Iran’s nuclear programme, which despite considerable international pressure, including sanctions, continues unabated. Ahmadinejad has said that the Islamic republic will continue to enrich uranium up to the 20 per cent level, which is a significant step on the way to making weapons-grade material. Astonishingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, reminded us, Iran is expected to seek membership of the 47-member Human Rights Council in elections in May. On 15 February, Mohammad Larijani, secretary-general of Iran’s high council for human rights, told the United Nations that Iran was,

“in full compliance with the relevant international commitments it has taken on in a genuine and long-term approach to safeguard human rights”.

But Michael Posner, the United States assistant secretary of state, said that Iran’s statement to the council was,

“strikingly at odds with the reality on the ground”.

Furthermore, Iranian officials have ruled out the notion of an external investigation into the state of their domestic human rights. No Human Rights Council official has visited the country since 2005, and numerous requests from special investigators have remained unanswered. As long as this type of woeful behaviour continues, Iran’s human rights record should never disappear from our radar.

Finally, I have five questions for the Minister. First, have the Government any evidence that the scale of protests in Iran is diminishing? Secondly, does he feel that recent clashes between opposition supporters and government forces following the deaths of the dissident cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hoseyn Ali Montazeri, have further undermined the legitimacy of the Iranian regime? Thirdly, what discussions has the Minister had with his Iranian counterparts to end the on-going persecution of the Baha’is in Iran? Fourthly, what discussions have the Government had with Iran and our allies about reducing Iran’s nuclear projects? Finally, what contacts have Her Majesty's Government had with the revolutionary guards?

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, on securing a debate on this important and worthy subject and in particular for the powerful indictment he gave of the deteriorating human rights record of Iran. It rightly continues to command the attention and concern of this House, the international community, and most importantly the people of Iran.

The determination shown by protestors on Iranian streets since the disputed election last June clearly demonstrates their strength of desire for democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nothing in my brief says whether those are increasing or decreasing but the fact that they continue is very clear. I shall seek to provide more flesh on that skeleton, if I may. The Iranian people have raised genuine concerns, which their Government have a responsibility to address. Sadly, their Government have responded with violence, brutality and oppression, as a number of noble Lords have very succinctly and clearly expressed.

There are two threads running through the debate: one is the Iranian record on human rights and whether sanctions on that issue are appropriate; the second is the separate but important nuclear issue and whether there is a case for sanctions. We are clear that sanctions must lead to a result which, in this case, is to bring Iran to a productive, sensible dialogue on the nuclear issue. For that reason, sanctions under consideration should be targeted, proportionate and reversible should Iran change the direction of its nuclear programme. That is in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. We believe that it is vital to keep the issue separate from human rights to ensure that the sanctions are effective and achievable. We continue to lead the international community in condemning repeated violations of human rights in Iran and we will continue to assess the appropriate forums for further action on human rights. I shall return to that a little later. It is important to bear witness to the efforts of the Government of Iran to force their people into silent acquiescence and yet to acknowledge the very brave refusal of many of those same people to accept that.

On an important point made by my noble friend Lord Corbett, and referred to by a number of other noble Lords, clearly it is not for the British Government to decide who runs Iran; however, we must defend the basic principles of human rights and governance. These are not western principles; they are universal. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer made that point on the desire to investigate further the issue of economic sanctions.

In a very thoughtful contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, talked about cultural differences. The key is that there are cultural differences in Iran. I think the cultural difference is entirely between those who see a modern, democratic country looking forward—I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for it is a country with enormous resources and enormously talented people, who want the opportunity to expand—and those who would look backwards. In that sense the cultural differences are not between Iran and the neighbouring countries, Britain, the UN, the EU or any other country, but concern those within the country. We have seen that since the elections of last year. It is not for the British Government to determine the outcome of elections in that country.

My noble friend Lady Gibson made a point about the role of women in Iran. Women have played a prominent and courageous role in the post-election protests, and dozens connected with the campaign for equality and the Mujahedin movement have been sentenced to imprisonment and flogging on charges of acting against national security and propaganda against the system—something which must, in any circumstances, be condemned. Yet Iran signed up to international commitments, which this regime continues to abuse. The treatment of demonstrators, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said, bodes ill for any improvement in Iran’s human rights record in the short term. You only have to look at the detention of people during December’s Ashura protests and the February revolutionary commemoration.

The Iranian Government are cynical in their response to the universal periodic review of the Human Rights Council. Its response testifies to a complete state of denial by Iran’s leaders, who pretend that there are no significant problems whatever. Yet observers, not only British observers, would say that the human rights situation in Iran is probably the worst that it has been in 20 years. Freedom of expression has been curtailed, and the Iranian Government have sought to crush any form of dissent from their own people. Newspapers are banned if they carry reports considered unfavourable to the authorities. Access to the internet is sporadic, mobile phone networks are intermittently switched off, and satellites carrying international news have been jammed.

According to the International Press Institute, Iran now leads the world in jailing journalists. On the weekend preceding the 11 February Revolution commemorations, some 65 were reported detained. Those journalists who are tried often receive lengthy prison sentences for attempting to bring information to their fellow citizens and the outside world—information which in most countries of the world, not just western Europe or North America, would be expected to be available. Two recent examples of this persecution include Bahman Ahmadi Amouie, sentenced to seven years and four months and 32 lashes, and Saeed Laylaz, who was sentenced to nine years for maintaining ties with foreigners and working to overthrow the Government—which means that he had contact with someone outside Iran or outside Iran’s leadership.

The 10 days of dawn leading up to the anniversary on 11 February were marked by a chilling campaign of mass arrests, executions and calls for public hangings. This culminated in a heavy security presence on 11 February to deter any opposition protests during the regime’s show of defiance. Since June, countless demonstrators have been beaten on the streets by police and plain-clothed government supporters for peacefully exercising their right to assembly. Many were arrested and have subsequently appeared in televised show trials, making what are widely seen as forced confessions and self-denunciations. The Iranian people are all too aware of the means by which such sham confessions are elicited. Widespread allegations of torture and abuse of detainees have emerged widely.

Iran has committed itself to internationally accepted standards of justice, and has signed international protocols to that effect, which should extend to safeguarding the treatment of detainees and the right to a fair trial, but clearly does not. These show trials are deficient in many ways, and it is all the more concerning that a number of death sentences have been handed down during these trials. On 28 January, the Foreign Secretary expressed his appal at the execution of Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, sentenced to death during these grotesque parodies of justice. Rahmanipour was just 19 at the time of his execution, but he is by no means the youngest Iranian to have faced the noose. As my noble friend Lord Corbett emphasised, juveniles are not in any way inviolate. Forty juvenile offenders have been executed in Iran since 1999, and an estimated 130 young offenders await a similar fate on death rows. This is simply wrong. It is also in clear violation of internationally accepted norms and standards. The Iranian Government cannot avoid knowing this, not least because they have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

As my noble friend pointed out, these death penalty issues are of major concern, as Iran is second only to China in the number of people it executes. We know of 388 executions in 2009, at least 100 of which were carried out in the days immediately following the June presidential election. The Iranian government have started 2010 in the same deplorable vein, sentencing a number of protesters to death for the crime of mohareb, acting against God. Many of those convicted of capital offences for non-violent activity in defence of their rights are members of ethnic minority groups, who represent a convenient scapegoat for a Government desperate to deflect responsibility for their failings. Iranian regions with large minority populations, such as the Kurds in the northwest, the Arabs in the west and the Baluchis in the south-east suffer long-standing repression and economic disadvantage.

A number of points were made. First, on the point my noble friend made about the Baha’i faith, it has been subject to mounting persecution since the elections. The authorities seek to vilify the faith, deeming it responsible for recent violence on the Tehran streets. The prolonged incarceration and psychological torment of individuals is unacceptable. It provides a strong example of a flawed judicial process.

The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, raised the question of a British dual national who was in court in Iran earlier this month. When we saw reports of this, our embassy in Iran immediately sought clarification from the Iranian Foreign Minister, who subsequently informed us that no British citizen had been in court on those dates. We pressed that and the Iranian authorities, based on the understanding that an individual may be a British-Iranian dual national, do not recognise that dual nationality and therefore would not accept any British interest in the case.

On the question of the Human Rights Council, raised by my noble friend Lord Anderson, there are five candidates—as he rightly said. We have received no indication that any of the five candidates wish to withdraw. We encourage contested elections to ensure that the human rights credentials of members running for election are under scrutiny. We encourage all UN states to consider the human rights record of candidates when voting. That is set out in the founding resolutions of the Human Rights Council itself.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Lea asked how we deal with the issue of nuclear sanctions. The position is that the IAEA board in November signalled yet again the international community’s concern about Iranian nuclear progress and expressed its regret that Iran refused to meet with the E3+3 countries to discuss its nuclear programme. We are now pushing for multilateral sanctions that will affect decision-makers in the regime, with the aim of bringing Iran to productive and sensible dialogue. We would consider tightening existing sanctions and extending them to other sections targeted in the regime. This probably echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. We are looking for a change of heart, bringing a dialogue to the table.

Even at this late stage, we hope that the external pressures applied—even by debates in a Committee of your Lordships’ House—will have some impact and that we will move forward so that that great country can be restored. It has had 100 years of blight in one form or another. It is about time it was able to emerge. The democratic movement within Iran is making it clear that it is determined to emerge.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this—

I am sorry, but there is no right of reply to this debate, unless there is a question for the Minister to clarify something.