41
Iran
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dalyell rose
19 MAY 1980
Mr. Speaker:
Order. If the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) wants to stop me, mid-way, from calling anyone else, so be it. However, I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising to catch my eye since the statement was made.
Will
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he has been making himself accountable for part of an informal meeting by making this state- ment, which gives the House of Commons an opportunity of considering it? he accept my assurance that I welcome the fact that he is moving only in con- cert with our European partners, which was the basis of the debate on the Bill last week, and that retrospective possi- bilities, although we have not yet heard when they will come in, are covered only by the 1939 Act and not by the Bill that we passed last week?
I en-
Sir I. Gilmour: That is true. tirely confirm what my hon. Friend has said that we shall act in close co-ordina- tion with our partners.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that many of us who took part in the debate last Mon- day and Tuesday can now see that we were totally misled? Is he aware that in a long and partially acrimonious debate last Tuesday, when I raised the point about the renegotiation of existing con- tracts, I was given the assurance by the Minister for Trade that Government policy was designed to affect only future contracts? Bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the retrospective element, cannot he see that we now know that we have been totally misled?
Sir I. Gilmour: I appreciate that that is what the hon. Gentleman may think, but having read both what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office said and what my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said, I can only advise the hon. Gentle- man to read what they said. I hope that he will then withdraw what he has just
said.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: If at all times it was the Government's intention to use the 1939
37 C 31
Iran
42
Act, retrospectively if necessary, why was it necessary for the Government to lay so much emphasis on the non-retrospective character of the 1980 Act?
Sir I. Gilmour: Because the 1980 Act does not apply retrospectively if applied to service contracts. But from the bits that I have already read out from the re- marks of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, it will be seen that he kept the pos- sibility of retrospection clearly before the House.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Whether or not they are retrospective, what arrangements exist to ensure that other member States,
particularly France, will honour the sanc tions policy and not use sanctions as a device to secure contracts that would otherwise be secured by the United King- dom?
If my right hon. Friend thinks that this matter is hypothetical, perhaps I may ask whether he ever visited Salisbury, Rhodesia, during the time of mandatory sanctions, when it was difficult to move in Meikle's hotel without meeting French- men and Germans?
Sir I. Gilmour: I think that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have already answered that question when I said that we shall see that those who play cricket are not disadvantaged by those who do not.
Mr. Spriggs: Is the right hon. Gentle- man aware that to bring in retrospection at this stage is letting down right hon. and hon. Members who went into the Division Lobby in support of the sanctions Bill? I am one of those hon. Members who opposed the Bill, because I could not trust the Government's foreign policy. Here we have a bankrupt policy being exposed to the world. If we are all at one in favour of getting the hostages released, for good- ness sake let us have a foreign policy to which the whole of the House can agree.
Sir I. Gilmour: Certainly the Conser- vative Benches are very much in favour of a bipartisan foreign policy, and in some respects we have that. But as the hon. Gentleman voted against the Bill he does not have much cause to complain.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the Lord Privy Ministers gave in their discussions to the Seal say what consideration the Foreign
position of companies that had already entered into contracts? Will the Govern- ment not allow the lack of precedent for