Iran
Iran
34
19 MAY 1980
of the House will be aware of the reason why this course has been adopted.
33
the basis of having had what he calls an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers, about which he says that the convention is that reports are not made, to found upon that informal meeting a major statement of policy, and then to say that other matters--we know that this has been a weekend of quite exceptional diplomatic activity-under discussion in Vienna as well as in Naples are not to be the sub- ject of report to the House. I warn the right hon. Gentleman that this will not be acceptable to us. If this is to be the new practice of the Government we shall find many ways of making them change their mind.
Sir I. Gilmour: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman working himself into a rage. He knows the procedure. We are acting here in accordance with the his- toric procedures. The matter concerning Iran was quite exceptional. It was well known that the Foreign Ministers at the informal meeting were, for once, in- tending to make a decision on the matter. But, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows or should know-decisions are not usually taken at informal meetings of Foreign Ministers.
Mr. Amery: We are hoping that the prospect of sanctions, allied to quiet dip- lomacy, will lead to the release of the hostages, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the decisions taken present us with an awkward dilemma? If the sanc- tions fail they usually do the credibility of the West will be still further weakened, and we shall have no option except to strengthen the Western military capa- bility in South-West Asia. If, on the other hand, they succeed in imposing un- acceptable damage on the Iranian econ- omy, this will redound to the advantage of both the pro-Soviet and the pro- Western opponents of the present Iranian Government. Should not we make up our minds fairly quickly, to identify who are our friends in Iran?
Sir I. Gilmour: My right hon. Friend has pointed to the disadvantages that are attached to sanctions. I think that many people in the House, if not most people, would agree with him. In principle, most people are against the sanctions, because usually sanctions do not work, but after two days of debate in the House last week, my right hon. Friend and the rest
37 C 27
Mr. Russell Johnston: What are the grounds for encouragement to which the Lord Privy Seal referred, and why have they had no effect on the timing of the
sanctions?
The Lord Privy Seal said that the sanc- tions would be introduced in parallel by the members of the Community. How does he intend to demonstrate this to the House, following the debate?
Sir I. Gilmour: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's ques- tion, I refer him to the last paragraph in the declaration by the Foreign Minis- ters. I also refer him to the various aspects of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has just called quiet diplo-
macy
<<
With regard to simultaneity, we shall have to co-ordinate very closely with our partners, and we are in very close touch with them.
Mr. Dalyell: If the 1939 Act is now considered sufficient, what on earth was the House of Commons doing on Monday and Tuesday of last week? Will the Lord Privy Seal look at the statement made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office? He said:
"We came to the conclusion that the 1939 Act was not sufficient for our purposes because, although it is a blockbuster, its scope is too narrow. [Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 919.]
What has changed in the last 72 hours?
Sir I. Gilmour: Nothing at all. Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood the position. We shall have to produce orders under both Acts. The 1939 Act is not suffi- cient. For one thing, it does not deal with service contracts; for another, it does not deal with transport.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The an- nouncement referred, I think, to the special legal difficulties likely to be en- countered in Germany and Italy in regard to retrospection in the context of these contracts. Can my right hon. Friend say in what way the legal position there differs from that in this country, where, presumably, the trader would have to rely on the doctrine of frustration and that of an intervening act, if sued for