My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I remind the House that I chair the British Committee for Iran Freedom.

The Question was as follows:

To ask the Government what is their response to the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iran's nuclear weapons development.

My Lords, the United Kingdom has long-held concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions. So do others, as was made clear recently in the statements by the G8, the EU and EU/US summits. The House will wish to know that the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency is currently under discussion by the board of governors in Vienna. Her Majesty's Government hope that the board will adopt a robust position on this issue.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can there be any doubt that the mullahs' regime in Tehran, which uses terror at home and sponsors it abroad, is trying to deceive the world over its nuclear weapons programme, which was revealed to the world last year by the National Council of Resistance of Iran? May I take it from what my noble friend said to me that the United Kingdom is going to back demands by the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency that the mullahs honour their international obligations and immediately permit intrusive and unannounced inspection of their nuclear facilities?

My Lords, I hope that my initial Answer made it clear that the fears expressed about Iran's nuclear capability have not been allayed. I can tell the House that I met Dr El Baradei, the director general of the IAEA, in Vienna only last week and naturally we discussed this matter. He has, as the noble Lord indicated, grave concerns. I hope that a robust response will come forward from the governors. I can also tell the House that I have agreed to meet the director general again, if possible, to discuss the matter further before the next governors' meeting, which is due to take place in November this year.

My Lords, did the noble Baroness note the statement by Foreign Minister Kharrazi asking for unspecified assurances from the IAEA before Iran will agree to sign the additional protocol which is necessary to allow the thorough inspections which are clearly warranted? This is in spite of the fact that this is a standard text that has been adhered to by some 35 other countries without difficulty. In the meanwhile, have there been any sites that the agency would like to have inspected to which a visit has been denied in the absence of the protocol? In the light of Iran's withdrawal of the ambassador in the United Kingdom, what influence does the noble Baroness think the UK can have in persuading Iran to comply with her international obligations?

My Lords, I have noted the points made in relation to Dr Kharrazi and it is our view that Iran should sign the additional protocol forthwith and without any conditions. I have made that clear to Iranian ministers when they have visited this country. As to the withdrawal of the ambassador, that was on a matter quite unconnected with this issue but I can tell the House that the ambassador is now back in London and I am very pleased that he is.

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, is right—I hope that he is—and this leads to an ultimatum to Iran to allow in the inspectors, and if that produces no co-operation from Iran, can the Minister tell us what would then be the next step? What sanctions are there to bring to bear on Iran? Would the British Government be prepared, for instance, to draft and propose a resolution at the United Nations raising the question of Iran's non-compliance with the non-proliferation treaty?

My Lords, I wish to be very careful on this matter because, as I have indicated to your Lordships, this is under active discussion in Vienna at the governors' meetings. I do not want to anticipate the outcome of a meeting which is clearly one where a number of different countries have differing points of view and we must try to reach international consensus.

Let me try to be a bit more helpful. If we do get a robust response from the governors, and if Iran continues to take no notice of the points of view put by the IAEA, there will be a further meeting of the governing body in November this year. That was why I indicated that I hoped I would be able to have further meetings in the intervening period between now and then. Of course there is a possibility that this matter might be referred to the Security Council but I and, I am sure, others hope that Iran will do the sensible and right thing and engage properly with the requests of the IAEA.

My Lords, I strongly support the robust line being taken. Does the noble Baroness agree that if, in the case of North Korea, it is felt necessary to address some of the security concerns of that extremely disagreeable regime at the same time as pressing very hard on its nuclear ambitions, when dealing with a much more sophisticated government like the Government of Iran it might be a good idea if the United States was also prepared to address some of their security concerns? Does she have any idea what the United States might be prepared to do in its relationship with Iran if Iran were to sign the additional protocol?

My Lords, it is always very difficult to draw direct comparisons; nobody knows that better than the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. If the Government of Iran have particular points that they wish to raise that are matters of genuine concern about their security, it is only right and proper to listen to those concerns. There is no secret about the fact that we have a different analysis of the way in which to encourage Iran to be part of the international community from that held by our friends in the United States. Where we disagree with the United States we try to persuade them that the role that we are adopting of engagement with Iran—critical engagement, certainly, but still engagement—is a better way of encouraging it to comply with international norms. Of course we will try to persuade the United States to encourage rather than disengage in the way that, regrettably, has perhaps been the case.