}
45
an (Lord Privy Seal's
19 MAY 1980
“Subsection (2) provides that no order under the Bill can apply to existing contracts or to any contracts made before the date on which an order under the Bill is made." What can be clearer than that?
The Minister of State also said:
"This Bill gives the Government no power over existing contracts. Powers exist under the 1939 Act not over contracts but as re- gards the shipment of goods."
What could be clearer than that?
Indeed, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), the Minister of State said:
"We would have power under the 1939 Act to deal with that situation, but as regards shipment, not contracts."-[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 919-21.]
Perhaps the Minister is getting petulant about the 1939 Act. I should like to quote from "YY3", page 179, of Han- sard, which has not yet been printed. At 4.30 am last Wednesday morning, the Minister of State, Foreign and Common- wealth Office said:
the hon. Member for West Lothian has done nothing but read out great chunks of the 1939 Act, which does not seem to be relevant to the Bill or to his amendment."
A
I put it to him that those chunks were highly relevant.
1980.
Statement)
If one looks at one sees that it states:
"
46
“ VV3 page 280,
I remind the House that the Bill deals only with the question of future contracts." Throughout the night that was in Minis- ters' minds-
Mr. Speaker: That may well be. How- ever, the hon. Gentleman must make his case as to why a debate that has been promised, should take place tonight or to- morrow. That is the burden of his appli- cation. I do not want a rehearsal of the arguments that were used last week.
Mr. Dalyell: Through the learned Clerk Assistant it has been brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that some of us think that the Government's proposals introduce the principle of retrospective legislation. This is not a legalistic point, nor will it wait. Many contracts have been signed between 4 November and last week. In answer to your legitimate ques- tion, Mr. Speaker, that is why there is urgent need for a debate. Many firms have extremely urgent interests.
As proof, the trade figures-which were published on Friday-show that exports to Iran were worth £54 million in April 1980. The level of exports is slowly re-
If one looks at "R3", page 55 of the turning to the figure of £750 million per unprinted Hansard-
Mr. Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he should confine his remarks to his application. He should not make the speech that he would make if his application were granted.
Mr. Dalyell: I draw those quotations to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because I do not believe in gesture politics. I do
not believe that hon. Members should move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for frivolous reasons, or for those of publicity. I am simply trying to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious case. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield),-" R3 ", page 55 of the unprinted Hansard for 12 May 1980-the Minister clearly said:
"The Talbot contract is an existing one which would be affected, if at all, by the 1939 Act. The Government are fully aware of the contract."
The Minister made clear that the Bill applied to future contracts. The Minister for Trade spoke petulantly on 13 May
37 C 33
annum, the figure that existed before the revolution. It would be difficult to estab- lish exact figures for the amount of busi- ness transacted between 4 November and the Royal Assent. Doubtless some ex- porters may try to backdate their con- tracts as a means of circumventing sanc- tions. But a managing director, who must remain nameless as he has not cleared the statement with his board,
spoke to me this morning. His remarks demonstrate the urgency of the issue. He said:
"If sanctions are to be imposed from 4 November, then we are knocked for six, not only on account of current losses, but also on account of the ill-will of our customers, in Iran, who will turn to the Romanians and East Ger- mans, and are unlikely to come back to us, after being let down on current work."
An export manager-who will remain nameless for obvious reasons--wearily said that if sanctions were to be back- dated to 4 November, he would get straight on to his Turkish contacts to see how they could fulfil the contract, by transporting goods through Turkey. Even today, action is being taken.