Select committee: Foreign Affairs Committee
Conclusion 64
Fifth report: No prosperity without justice: the UK’s relationship with Iran
Published 16 Dec 2020
Addressed to Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Foreign Affairs Committee The UK and Iran All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗
Conclusion (the committee's words)
Our predecessor Committee reported on the UK’s sanctions policy after Brexit and explored the possibility of using Magnitsky sanctions against human rights abusers.146 The Foreign Secretary announced the UK’s first round of Magnitsky-style sanctions in July 2020 against nationals of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and North Korea.147 Iran was notable by its absence, particularly as the international community is aware of many individuals within Iran known to have committed human rights abuses.148 Behnam Ben Taleblu told us that Global Magnitsky sanctions can and should be used to punish those engaged in human rights violations or gross acts of government corruption. […] The exact scale and scope of the penalty can be highlighted when being issued, and should remain in place until the behavior–in this case the detention of UK nationals–ceases by the relevant authority.149 The assessment was shared by Charlie Loudon who noted that “Magnitsky sanctions are well-suited to supporting behavioural change”.150 However, Dr Van Engeland took the opposite view, noting that sanctions could increase scrutiny on human rights but would be resented by already heavily sanctioned Iranians who would not draw an obvious link between sanctions and detained British and dual nationals.151 The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, James Cleverly MP, noted in correspondence to us in August that the FCDO would “continue to designate under the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations” and stressed the importance of ensuring “that all designations are underlined by a robust evidence case, ensuring that legal tests and policy objectives are met” but would not be drawn further.152 145 Tulip Siddiq MP (UKI0032), para 65 146 Foreign Affairs Committee, Seventeenth Report of Session 2017–19, Fragmented and incoherent: the UK’s sanctions policy, HC 1703, paras 11–19 147 UK announces first sanctions under new global human rights regime, FCO, 6 July 2020 148 Report to Congress List of Persons W
From: Foreign Affairs Committee, Fifth report: No prosperity without justice: the UK’s relationship with Iran (HC 415), 16 December 2020
Government response
The government responded to the whole report on 26 February 2021 (deadline 16 February 2021).
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.The Government welcomes several of the Committee's conclusions and sets out a position built on "engagement, pressure, and incentives", while noting rather than adopting a number of specific recommendations.
- On the nuclear deal, it agrees it would not be in the UK's interests to terminate the JCPoA "without a viable replacement", and says it will work with E3 partners and the new US Administration. It notes the recommendations on ballistic missiles, sunset clauses and IAEA cooperation.
- It states that it "has never said that its long-term goal is to 'replace' the JCPoA", while agreeing that consultation across the Middle East region will be critical.
- On proscribing the IRGC, it takes "careful note" of the recommendation. It says the IRGC is subject to UK sanctions, and that it is "longstanding Government policy not to comment" on whether an organisation is under consideration for proscription.
- On a Foreign Secretary statement on a JCPoA replacement, it says only that the Foreign Secretary "will update the House when it is appropriate to do so". It notes the proposal for a UN hostage-taking convention addition without committing to it.