TNAG-0930-FCO40-1148-Sanctions-against-Iran-extension-to-Dependent-Territories-1980 — Page 246

35

Iran

19 MAY 1980

[Sir D. Walker-Smith.] breach of contract? Could my right hon. Friend make a statement in the House -or get one of his right hon. Friends to do so elaborating somewhat, for the guidance of those concerned, the position of people involved in contracts and say- ing how we differ in this respect from the other two countries?

Sir I. Gilmour: I would not want to burden the House with my views about the legal position in Germany and other countries. That would be beyond my competence. I can only say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, as I sug- gested earlier, we shall aim to act simul- taneously and also with the same degree of severity over these matters, to see that we are not getting in front of our part- ners, nor getting behind them. That must be our objective, and I hope the House will agree that it is a sensible one.

Mr. Winnick Is the right hon. Gen- tleman aware that many will feel that the Government have cheated over the date when sanctions are to be applied, and that those who will suffer and feel most strongly are those whose jobs could be at risk in this country? Would it not have been far better, on the merits of the matter, for the Foreign Ministers to recognise that sanctions are a futile and farcical gesture, which—as was pointed by many of

us on the Labour Benches during the debate last week will in no way help to secure the release of one hostage?

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is always consistent about sanctions and thinks that they should never be pursued anywhere, but to say that we have been cheating is characteristic of him. It is totally wrong. I have already read out to the House what my hon. Friend said during the debate, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade said much the same thing. There is no question whatever of cheat- ing.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, at the end of the day, in addition to sanctions, and in order to get the hostages released, we are obliged to consent to some sort of bizarre trial or inquiry into the role of the United States of America--and, in- deed, the Shah-in Iran, everybody

37 C 28

Iran

36

should be properly represented at those proceedings? Does he further agree that in addition there should be ample oppor- tunity to compare the present regime with its predecessor?

Sir I. Gilmour: No doubt that is so, but my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that it goes well beyond the confines of my statement.

Mr. Ennals: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that the state- ment that he made goes against the will of the House? It was perfectly clear in the debate that the measure did not apply to contracts made before the debate.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that many hon. Members on each side of the House voted for the Bill in those circumstances. He is now telling the House something that is quite different. Surely, what he is now sug- gesting is against the absolute will of the House, as expressed in the Lobbies.

Sir I. Gilmour: I do not think that a point becomes any stronger by being re- peated three times. I have already given the answer. The 1980 Act does not apply to existing contracts, but, as my hon. Friend made clear several times to the House, the 1939 Act does.

Mr. Aitken: Did the Foreign Ministers of the EEC receive any indication from the French Foreign Minister as to what would be said about Iran by President Giscard to President Brezhnev at their mysteriously private summit meeting? If not, was this not a serious omission?

Sir I. Gilmour: My hon. Friend will appreciate that that has very little to do with my statement.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Have not the Gov- ernment completely misled the House on this question? Is it not a fact that the 1939 Act does not cover service contracts or transport contracts? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there may well have been service and transport contracts arranged between 4 November and today, yet those who have drawn up those con- tracts were not aware that this legislation would be retrospective? If the measure is an enabling Act and needs to be amended, will amending legislation be brought before the House?