37
Iran
19 MAY 1980
Sir 1. Gilmour: Repeating myself for the fourth time will not make any dif- ference. It has been made perfectly clear that the 1939 Act applies in this case and that there is no question of amending legislation being needed.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Government Benches he had overwhelming support in bringing legislation forward to use sanctions against Iran? However, is he also aware that many of us on the Gov- ernment Benches were not aware, in listening to the debates last week, that the retrospective element of the legisla- tion which will now be involved against Iran was even being considered? Is he further aware that it will do enormous damage to British industry, and that many people since November have made con- tracts-quite justifiably--which will now be revoked over their heads? I do not believe that my right hon. Friend intended this when he last spoke to the House and I hope that he will confirm that it is only because of the influence of the EEC on British Government policy that this step has now been taken.
Sir I. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening sentence. He will be aware that the contracts going back to 4 November will come under the 1939 Act.
Mr. Douglas: Will the Lord Privy Seal indicate how the Nine propose to monitor the effect of sanctions? What instru- ments are available to ensure that other nations who do not play cricket, as we do, do not cheat over the imposition of sanctions? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the number of firms and jobs that might be affected by the retrospective element of the legislation that he seeks to impose?
Sir I. Gilmour: It is too early to dis- cuss how we shall monitor something that has not yet been brought into effect. I entirely agree that it is an extremely important matter. We shall see that the cricketers do not suffer more than the
non-cricketers. On the second point, I agree that it is important, but I cannot give the House any figures.
Mr. Hal Miller: As one who went along with the sanctions policy with great misgivings, but realising that it was neces- sary to do something to support our
37 C 20
Iran
38
American allies, may I ask my right hon. Friend's help in giving us some reason why the 1939 powers are being invoked and why they are being back- dated to 4 November? Has any decision yet been taken on what constitutes a new contract? Those of us who are con- cerned with the motor industry, for ex- ample, in which orders are consistently renewed on a schedule basis, find the position very confusing and disturbing.
Sir I. Gilmour: I appreciate my hon. Friends' point. As he realises, at the meeting in Naples no decisions were taken on the details, although this is a particu- larly important detail. The Government consider that it will be in conformity with the Naples decision that continuing arrangements, essentially concluded be fore November, should be excluded from the sanctions.
Mr. Cryer: Can the Minister tell us whether any estimates have been made of the number of jobs likely to be lost? Also, do the Government now accept the principle that retrospective legislation is necessary, although they did not give that impresseion in the debates last week? Is it not true that my hon. Friends' views about "cheating" are indeed justi- fied? Will the Lord Privy Seal also accept that this is a particularly complex issue? In view of its complexity, added to the fact that people might be retiring from the scene very shortly, and that it is to do with foreign countries, will he adopt the Attorney-General's principle that in those cases an amnesty will be intro- duced?
I
Sir I. Gilmour: I have already ans wered the hon. Member's first point. I cannot give an estimate. I have also answered the allegation of cheating. entirely agree that this is a complex matter. The date of 4 November has been chosen because that was the date on which the hostages were taken.
Mr. Marlow: As today's announce- ment is part of a co-ordinated European foreign policy, and as many of us can- not possibly believe that it would have been made otherwise, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the visit of President Giscard d'Estaing to President Brezhnev is part of that policy? Or is it just an ego trip on the part of the President of France? Secondly, if we are now going