§ The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson)I beg to move,
That this House approves the Export of Goods (Control) (Iran Sanctions) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 735).The order was laid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on 29 May under section 1 of the 1939 Act, which prohibits the export of embargoed goods to Iran.On Second Reading and in Committee my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I gave assurances that the order would be brought before the House in the same way as the preceding order, although the formal approval of Parliament is not a requirement of the 1939 Act. The order will be revoked if it is not approved by Parliament. We have promised that the House will be given an equal opportunity to debate the order. The motion seeks specific approval of the order.
I hope that the House will agree that I need not go through the provisions of the order in detail as they follow the definitions and exceptions in the preceding order. However, I shall mention two features. Article 2 prohibits the export of embargoed goods from the United Kingdom to Iran. The House will notice that, unlike the previous order, the prohibition does not extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the dependent territories. Parallel action in those other territories is being taken by the authorities or the governors in each case.
Secondly, the prohibition on exports is not limited to goods supplied in performance of a contract, as is the case under article 3 of the previous order. As a result the embargo extends, for example, to goods exported to Iran by a person who is already their owner. The order does not apply to exports pursuant to existing contracts. In that it resembles the previous order.
1608 My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said in the House on 20 May, in response to clearly expressed wishes, that sanctions would not bite on the performance of existing arrangements.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)In a written answer the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated:
The Export of Goods (Control) (Iran Sanctions) Order 1980 applies to the United Kingdom only, but parallel action is being taken in Hong Kong, and the other dependent territories, and the Channel Islands have also been asked to take such action.The Minister has again used the phrase " parallel action ". How will parallel action be effective? What measures will be taken? Anyone who knows the setup in Hong Kong will know that parallel action is quite a formidable operation.
§ Mr. ParkinsonBy a strange coincidence, I happen to have the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Executive Committee in Hong Kong has approved an order requiring licences for all goods exported from Hong Kong and transhipped through Hong Kong for Iran. In issuing licences the Hong Kong authorities will follow the same policies as those that appear in the United Kingdom regulations concerning exemptions from sanctions. That, together with the previous order, which applies to Hong Kong, will ensure that the same sanctions apply there as in the United Kingdom.
The Government do not intend to into-duce a licensing system. Companies will have to make a declaration that the goods that they are sending are not embargoed. The Customs authorities will from time to time test-check the arrangements and will call upon companies to justify the declaration. Any companies that are found to be breaking the orders will incur penalties.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) rose—
§ Mr. ParkinsonI thought that the House would like to know how the orders will be administered.
§ Mr. Marlow rose——
§ Mr. ParkinsonI shall sit down and let my hon. Friend the Member for 1609 Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) make his speech. I shall be happy to reply to it at the end of the debate. During the last debate I was accused of speaking for too long. I do not wish to make the same mistake.
§ Mr. Edward Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil)When the Minister replied to the previous debate, many hon. Members found themselves fed up at the way in which he attempted to deal with the argument that the House had put. The House did not complain that the Government had changed their mind or retreated. We did not complain that they had ruled out the possibility of the order affecting existing contracts or the contracts described in the two orders. Hon. Members pointed out that the wording of the order was unclear. It is confusing. It does not make clear what type of contract an exporter may make.
It was the wish of the House that the Government should retreat from their earlier position. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman accepted that point at the beginning of his remarks during the previous debate. Both orders refer to modification, amplification and extension of contracts. However, the wording is unclear. Exporters and those wishing to sign contracts do not know whether they could be caught out by the provisions.
When I quoted the example of a firm selling fridges, I did not do so frivolously. The firm might believe that it could also sell washing machines, because it would be a modification or amplification of an existing arrangement. I did not use a hypothetical example. I was quoting from a press report concerning a spokesman for the Department of Trade. Will the Minister say whether that illustration was accurate? It is important.
I understand the significance of the fact that the order has been made under the 1939 Act. The Hansard record of the Committee stage will reveal that we understood the question well. If the wording were stripped down, it might show that the order bans not new exports from existing exporters but new exporters. I have read the order thoroughly. All hon. Members will have read the paragraph referring to modification and amplification of existing contracts.
1610 The press has made a reasonable interpretation of the provision. If an exporter has been selling fridges but has an offer to sell washing machines, will that change constitute modification or amplification? If an existing exporter sells something that is not wildly different from goods that he exported earlier, will he be prosecuted? There was a sceptical comment among last week's press cuttings. I shall not rest my case on those comments. However, we are entitled to ask whether they are right. It was said that anyone selling coaches to Iran would also be able to drive horses through. That is true, because there is an exemption for live animals, including donkeys, which were mentioned earlier.
We want to know the meaning of the key paragraph to which hon. Members have returned time and again tonight. How far do modification, amplification and extension allow an existing exporter to add to the goods that he sells within what is called a similar class? I return to the question that I asked earlier: are washing machines in a similar class to fridges?
Department of Trade spokesmen were widely quoted last week and we are entitled to ask whether their comments were official or unofficial. The Times reported on 30 May that Britain's trade could increase in spite of sanctions. The report said that it was reckoned that sanctions ought at least to " check the growth" of our export trade. Will the Minister for Trade confirm that that is the expected result of the policy? He said that he thinks that we shall hold about the same level of exports.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has sat through our debates and it is a pity that we have not had a contribution from him. I am sure that the Minister for Trade agrees with me; I appreciate his wish to divert the fire and share the gallantry involved in presenting the Government's policy.
The orders must be seen in the broader context of the Government's whole policy. In our debates on Second Reading and in Committee, hon. Members argued strongly that if there was a justification for economic pressure, including some form of sanctions, it had to be part of a total political and diplomatic effort to obtain the release of the hostages.
1611 All sorts of things may be going on, but I am not clear in what political and diplomatic context we are expected to approve the order. We have heard nothing since our original debates about the Government's view on how they should approach political and diplomatic action or whether there is scope for international effort or United Nations' action, though we know of the rebuff of the Secretary-General's representatives in Tehran. Where do we go from here in political and diplomatic terms?
Unless we have the total picture, we cannot fully assess the value and relevance of the order. If I were asked what contribution I expected the orders to make to the release of the hostages, I should be tempted to reply in the vernacular, but I would confine myself to saying that we expect them to make little contribution.
§ Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd (Morecambe and Lonsdale)There is confusion in the hon. Gentleman's stance. In the first part of his speech he indicated that the gravamen of his case against the orders was a defect in their material detail. He amplified that clearly. He is now moving to arguments that are inconsistent with supporting the parent legislation that the Labour Party supported on Second Reading. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) gave full support to the forceful diplomatic initiative that he hoped would accompany these sanctions. Will the hon. Gentleman make the position clear?
§ Mr. RowlandsThe hon. Gentleman should be the last person to accuse me of lack of clarity. He made a marvellous and intriguing Oxford debating speech, which was redolent with oriental confusion. If the hon. Gentleman reads the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) on Second Reading and the amendments that we moved in Committee, he will see that, although there might be a case for the principle of economic pressure, international diplomatic action was the most important form of pressure and persuasion. My argument is consistent with our attitude throughout the debates. We want to know what the position is now. In co-operation with our partners and American allies, what is the present state 1612 of diplomatic action? We need to know what political and diplomatic action is proposed.
Until we know what action the Government intend to pursue with our partners, we must continue to ask whether the order alone can help to release the hostages. Most hon. Members have grave doubts and feel that the credibility of the policies outlined are laughable. I shall share that view until we can see the order in a broader political and diplomatic context.
§ Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)I voted against the trading sanctions order and I intend to vote against this order. Even had I doubted what to do, the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) would have convinced me. He described the order as laughable and went on to ridicule the order and the speech made by the Minister. The speech of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) also ridiculed the order. The hon. Gentlemen tried courteously to criticise the order, but then voted for it.
Although the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds was against the order and exposed its weaknesses, he based his reason for voting for it on the argument that we had to maintain the American alliance. I should have thought that we would have done America a greater service by guiding her away from military and economic pressures, knowing full well that the United States Government have already made one drastic mistake in trying to release the hostages by military action. By adopting sanctions the American Government might well not pursue a course which would lead to the early release of the hostages.
We have the greatest sympathy for the hostages held in Iran, but, as far as I know, there is no hon. Member of this House who believes that sanctions will lead to the freeing of the hostages. If that is the case, we ought to be dwelling on ways of securing their release other than by adopting sanctions. These orders will only strengthen the Iranians in their determination to show the Western world that they can stand alone, free of the West.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) quoted from the speech 1613 made by Ayatollah Khomeini at the conference which is taking place at the moment, in which he shouted his defiance of the West. We have the ridiculous state of affairs at present in which a former distinguished Attorney-General of the United States, Mr. Ramsey Clark, is in Iran taking part in a conference, and he has stated that the Shah should be put on trial. Whether that is right or wrong, there we have a leading American politician and lawyer declaring that America has been wrong in the past and implying clearly that America is wrong in pursuing a sanctions policy.
United States foreign policy, especially towards Russia, vacillates in a manner which alarms friends and foes alike. But, strangely, the United States Government always seem consistent in their attitude towards the United Kingdom, especially with regard to Northern Ireland. I mention that because the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out that the law had to be twisted to bring Northern Ireland within these sanctions. Northern Ireland business men, as well as those of England, Scotland and Wales, will encounter all sorts of difficulties and legal expense to find out whether they are within the law or outside it if they contract to supply goods or services to Iran.
We are imposing these sanctions to maintain the alliance. We are doing it for the sake of the grand alliance with the United States. But what do the United States Government do when the 1Ý million people of Ulster are hostages to the Provisional IRA? There, the United States Government take a different view. They impose a sanction on the British people and refuse the export of 3,000 Luger pistols to the RUC, whose members are fighting the evil men of the Provisional IRA who are murdering innocent British citizens, members of the UDR and the police and British soldiers. Yet the United States Government ask us to take these measures against the people of Iran when we know—and they know—that they will in no way secure the freedom of the 50 hostages in Iran and when more than 50 Ulster people have been murdered by American bullets and guns bought with American money contributed to the Provisional IRA.
The House should reject the order. I hope that hon. Members, bearing in mind 1614 the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, will decide to show common sense. Even though the United States has betrayed us and is prepared, for the sake of votes, to support the IRA, I believe that we would do the hostages most good and most help the people of the United States by rejecting the order. Sanctions will do nothing to further good relations between Iran and the United States.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)I am grateful for the chance to make a few brief comments. I am sorry that I cannot refer to the previous order, but my concern relates mainly to the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I shall, however, also have some individual comments to make that will be distinct and separate from those of the Committee.
The Committee is established by Parliament to scrutinise legislation. It is important that all legislation, irrespective of the merits, should be fair. The Committee is not concerned with the merits of legislation, tempting though it is sometimes to enter that area. It is concerned only with the form of the legislation. It draws to the attention of the House any duties of the Government that are not being adhered to.
If the Government wish to secure adherence to their view, they will not achieve that purpose if people are being dealt with unfairly. If people feel, for whatever purpose, that they are being discriminated against or that their rights are being eroded, the Government will hardly gain their support.
The Minister claimed, I thought unfairly, that the House wanted weak, wide orders. But the House never expressed a wish for orders that were potentially unfair or for powers that were unusual and excluded citizens from certain rights in the courts. The House, by setting up the Committee, has, in effect, said that it wishes all statutory instruments to be examined to make sure that excesses are drawn to the attention of hon. Members. The Minister was not fair in saying that this complicated and important matter took precedence even when people's rights were limited. Legislation must be applied fairly.
Article 1 (3) says that the order also includes a contract 1615
made in continuation of an established course of business dealing between the same parties relating to goods of the same or a similar class.The report of the Joint Committee makes clear that the evidence—there has not been time for it to be published—shows that it would be difficult to establish the criteria and that it would not be possible to say with confidence whether many cases fell within them. That seems to me to be highly unsatisfactory and something that the Government should take careful note of.The second point that I raise is common to both orders. It is most important and is one of the items which the Joint Committee has a duty to draw specifically to the attention of the House. It is the exclusion of the rights of appeal in a court under article 5 by virtue of the absolute powers granted to the Secretary of State.
In this order article 3 further provides that the Secretary of State shall in effect require that
all conditions attaching to the said licence are complied with.He has not only the right to revoke or modify an order but the quasi-judicial job of scrutinising the fulfilment of conditions which he attaches to the order. There is no appeal against that, because the legislation gives him that absolute power. That is greatly disturbing.The Minister has repeatedly said tonight that the Government have rejected a licensing system. Perhaps the Government want only to produce a cosmetic but whatever they are producing in subordinate legislation has to conform to certain criteria. Basically, that includes fairness in its application to citizens. In producing this sort of legislation in conformity with other EEC members, the Government should have paid much closer attention to the possibility of a licensing system. It may be cumbersome, but those who are faced with it, if they have an appeals system such as is excluded by this order, may feel that in the long run it is fairer if they have some means of making representations.
The Minister says that he is responsible to the House, but that does not mean a great deal. By the time his decision has been made, the constituent contacts his Member of Parliament, and the Member secures an Adjournment debate or 1616 tables questions, the run of the order may be finished. The decision will have been made and in practice it is most unlikely that a Minister will revoke it. That would tend to make him appear weak. So, although it is fine-sounding to say that the Minister is accountable to this House, in practice, with the application of routine licensing, it does not mean much.
There are one or two points that are not connected with the legislative character of the instruments. Other EEC countries have adopted a licensing system because, although they may be concerned simply with producing an EEC-wide cosmetic, they have felt that their way is fairer than giving the Minister absolute powers.
We all want to see the hostages released and we have to judge whether these orders will have the slightest effect in that direction. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, these orders are simply gesture politics. We should not be involving ourselves in this sort of gesture with this detailed application of a meaningless cosmetic in order to demonstrate our support for American foreign policy.
There have been many examples where, if friends have wanted to influence one another, they have adopted not a " me too " approach but a constructively critical approach. They say " You are going down the wrong path ". That can result in a stronger bond of friendship if those friends know that they are speaking honestly and squarely to one another. If we speak honestly and squarely to the Americans, we must say that the scheme will not work and that it is a waste of time. The only way that the hostages will be released is by negotiations, no matter how long they take. This is a weak and futile gesture, which will not help to release the hostages one day sooner.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)My hon. Friend the Minister said that there would be an opportunity for me to speak and that he would be happy to answer any questions which I asked. I shall begin by asking a couple of questions.
The stated reason for the order is to secure, as soon as possible, the release of the unfortunate American hostages. Will 1617 the Minister undertake that the day that the hostages are released and leave Iranian soil sanctions will be withdrawn? I shall describe a more tragic possibility. Let us suppose that some of the hostages are found guilty under Iranian law and that the death penalty is imposed. If several hostages are shot and the others released, will the Government withdraw sanctions? There would be no point in continuing them.
In the previous debate the Minister spoke of people who were about to settle contracts in Iran knocking on his door and saying that they would lose business. I am sure that the Government have gone into the proposals with their eyes wide open. I am sure that they have made an estimate of the loss of business to the United Kingdom as a result of the orders. What is the estimate of the value of business that the United Kingdom will lose as a result of sanctions?
What will happen if a third country which has no sanctions against Iran sets up as a trading principal and seeks goods from the United Kingdom and sells them to Iran? That could be done without the knowledge of the British Government or the manufacturer. Alternatively, a company could say that that is what it proposes to do. How will the order affect such an arrangement?
The orders flow from an Act to impose sanctions against Iran. I have scanned the history books and examined the recent past. I have tried to find circumstances in which sanctions have had a positive effect on the country against which they were imposed. I shall be happy to give way to the Minister if he can give an example of any country which has been positively affected by sanctions. We could rest more easily if he produced such evidence. If the Minister wants to intervene, I shall be happy to sit down. Perhaps we can return to that later.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, even if the Minister does find such a historic example of sanctions having some effect, the chances of these sanctions having some economic bite and influencing the Iranian people in the aftermath of an economic and social and political revolution are slight? Is it not likely that further hardships, if there are any, will make the Iranians more determined to achieve their objectives?
§ Mr. MarlowI accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. I should be surprised if my hon. Friend could bring forward a convincing example of sanctions having an effect. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's other point in the course of my speech.
I have asked, along with others, in what way sanctions will bring about the release of the hostages. Again, I and other right hon. and hon. Members have not had a satisfactory answer. What effects will sanctions have? Iran is in a state of revolution, with various factions competing with one another—perhaps three, perhaps four—to take over the reins of power. Mainly they are concerned with internal events. One faction is probably more favourably disposed towards Western interests than another.
Alexander Pope said that the best thing to do when there are troubles at home is to soothe worries by inventing foreign troubles. If there is a faction that is more anti-West than another it will seize upon these sanctions as a way of unifying its people. It will not only strengthen its campaign and make it more likely to be successful but, having been successful, will make such people more strongly inclined against Western interests than ever.
The final reason given for continuing with the order is the necessity to stand by our allies, the Americans, who have stood by us. If one's friends have embarked on a sensible course of action, by all means stand by them, work with them, do what one can to help. But if they are about to do a nose-dive into foul ground, one should do everything one can to restrain them.
§ Mr. Martin Stevens (Fulham)Was it not Lord Brougham who was told that loyalty is supporting one's friends when one thinks that they are wrong?
§ Mr. MarlowI agree that there is a lot to be said for supporting one's friends when they are wrong. But supporting them does not necessarily mean encouraging them to continue with a course of action which will be damaging to their interests and to one's own interests if it is possible to convince them to take a different course of action.
The hostages are currently in the hands of so-called students. I believe that they 1619 are militants who are largely members of the Tudeh Party—the Communist Party—which is largely controlled from Moscow. They have been very successful so far in carrying out Moscow's orders. First, they have diverted attention from Afghanistan to Iran. Secondly, they have persuaded the American Government to take a course of action in trying to rescue the hostages which has been most counter-productive to the perception of American policy within the Middle East and which has been most unhelpful to Western interests in that area.
Now, by their continuing action in holding the hostages, the militants are forcing European countries to embroil themselves in a policy of sanctions which will damage our interests and the esteem in which we are held in that part of the world, not just by the Iranians but by many of the important Arab countries. By pursuing these orders, we are acting against our national interests and the interests of the West in the Middle East.
I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). The United States is now faced with the problem of terrorism and is coming to us for assistance. We very much wish to give what assistance we can to our allies. For years our people have not just been held hostages; they have been murdered, maimed, tortured and terrorised in Northern Ireland. We have asked for a perfectly simple thing —for weapons to help against the campaign of murderous terrorism. The request has been turned down. Until we get those weapons, I feel most disinclined——
§ Mr. Dalyell rose——
§ Mr. MarlowI am just about to finish. The hon. Member is always getting up and intervening in other people's speeches. Perhaps he will hear me out. Unless and until the Americans are sympathetic to helping us with our problems, I am much disinclined to help them with theirs.
§ Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)I very much regret having had to sit here and listen to one of the nicest Ministers being attacked by his hon. Friends, one after another. It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman does not have a friend left 1620 in the House tonight. Bearing in mind the charming manner in which he used to deal with me when we served on the Finance Bill Committee, I feel very sorry for him. I wish that there was some way in which he could get out of the tangle and mess into which he has got himself. But there we are: the hon. Gentleman has taken on this great role of Parliamentary Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: " No ".]—Minister for Trade, and it is his task tonight to defend an untenable position. It is a position which the Government have brought upon themselves.
Despite the fact that the previous order went through with a large majority, we have heard one Conservative Member after another attack the use of sanctions—and indeed the very idea of sanctions—as a policy. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, Conservative Members voted for the previous order not out of conviction, not because they think that this policy will do any good at all, but out of sheer loyalty to their comrades and friends in the Government.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)And in the United States.
§ Mr. StoddartWell, perhaps in the United States. They went into the Lobby and voted for the order. They have ignored the interests of this country and of their constituents to follow blindly a policy in which the Government do not really believe. I think that this is a matter of great regret, and I do not think that tonight the House has done itself very much good.
I believe that the holding of the American hostages is a disgraceful act of terrorism, which all will condemn. I have condemned it all the way along. Indeed, when a consular official came to the House to explain his country's policy to a group from the Parliamentary Labour Party I took the opportunity to tell him what I thought of him, of his Government and of those who were holding the hostages. It is a disgraceful act of terrorism, which we must all condemn.
Having said that, we must surely recognise that the objective of everyone in the House—indeed of everyone in this country—is to secure the release of the hostages, alive and well. That is the major objective. Will these sanctions achieve 1621 that? Will they go any way towards achieving that? I do not believe that they will. I do not believe that anybody in this House except perhaps the Minister—and even he is a little diffident about this—believes that these orders will do anything to secure the release of the hostages, safe and well.
§ Mr. SpearingIs it not a little unfair to berate the Minister for Trade? The technical orders are perhaps the responsibility of his Department, but is it not the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its Ministers to demonstrate the impact that these sanctions will have on the economy of Iran—such of it as is within the money sector—and, further, how that impact will influence political thought in Iran? I do not believe that any Minister of the Foreign Office demonstrated or sought to demonstrate that impact.
§ Mr. StoddartThey certainly have not sought to demonstrate that impact tonight. The Minister is having a bad night tonight. I even demoted him, for which I apologise. The Foreign Office stuck him up as a stooge. It should not have done that. It has a duty, because it has the prime responsibility, to explain to the House exactly how this policy would further the objectives of the Government in relation not only to the hostages, not only to Iran, but to our relationships with the United States and other countries. That has not been done.
As I have said already, no one believes that the sanctions will do anything towards obtaining the release of the hostages alive and well. They certainly will not have any effect on the fanatical ayatollah. After all, his policy is to convert Iran into a full Islamic State. He does not believe in the Western ethic or the Western way of life. The sanction orders will help him to achieve his objectives. They will not assist in bringing about the release of the hostages. They will do nothing to convince the Ayatollah Khomeini and his henchmen—whether they be students, other ayatollahs or other people in political power—that they should release the hostages.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe hon. Gentleman is considering the whole matter from a Western point of view. Would he 1622 address his mind to a suggestion? What would the ayatollah and other prominent Iranian citizens make of the strength of the Western alliance if we did not support our allies? Would they draw the conclusion that we did not care about the detention of the American hostages? Would they draw the conclusion that we were not interested in helping a friend, however imperfect be the weapon that we were using? Would they draw the conclusion that there was not the conviction of which the hon. Gentleman spoke that it was an intolerable and unacceptable act?
§ Mr. StoddartWe are once again trying to impose the Western mind upon the Eastern mind. We cannot do that. The conclusion that the ayatollah and his henchmen will draw from the orders tonight is that Britain, along with the rest of the Western nations, intends to put pressure, if necessary even military pressure, on the authorities in Iran to reestablish themselves in control of that country.
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)Is it not right that it has nothing to do with the Eastern or Western mind? If there is one thing that history has shown us, from Vietnam to Dunkirk, it is that if one besieges a country in this way it reinforces resistance, regardless of whether it is Eastern, Western or anything else.
§ Mr. StoddartI think that that is true. If Parliament were faced with a threat of sanctions, if we were told that if we did not do something another country would impose sanctions against us, I think that that would stiffen our resistance. It would not make us concede. That again shows that the sanctions orders could be counter-productive.
It is certain that sanctions against the present regime in Iran will not achieve the desired objective. We shall be cutting off our noses to spite our faces. The people who will suffer from these sanctions will be our business men and workers in the factories who are already being made redundant by the thousand every day.
§ Mr. DalyellHas my hon. Friend seen the interesting work that has been 1623 done by the Catholic Institute for International Relations? That says:
An entire nation, in a spontaneous uprising, refused to be cast in an alien mould imposed by superpower economic and military imperatives. The Iranian revolution, whatever its outcome, thus calls into question the whole western approach to trade with and development in Third World countries.The Catholic Institute for International Relations has done some serious research into the situation and that research supports the argument being deployed by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. StoddartThe Catholic Institute for International Relations is an organisation that we must all respect. I think that it has hit the nail right on the head. As I said, these sanctions will do more damage to us than to the Iranians, and that is not the objective that we seek.
If the British Government had been acting in the interests of Britain and looking after the British attitude to foreign affairs, I wonder whether they would have come to the same conclusion over sanctions. We have agreed to impose these sanctions in concert with the nations of the EEC. They do not necessarily have the same experience and expertise as we have in dealings with the rest of the world. They have a different ethos from ourselves.
I wonder whether these sanctions are being imposed at the behest of the United States not only because we think that we are friends but because we feel that in some way we ought to be doing the same as our EEC partners. If so, I am not sure that that does any good for British foreign policy, and it certainly does not enhance the reputation of the British Government.
I fear that after tonight's debate these orders will be seen as a joke——
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)They are a joke.
§ Mr. StoddartWe know that they are a joke. The important thing is that they will be seen by the rest of the country, the United States and the rest of the world as a joke, and that will do more damage to our relations with the United States than anything else could. If they are to have action, they want to see action which has the whole country and Parliament behind it. These sanctions do not provide that kind of action. We have 1624 introduced these sanctions with no conviction at all. There has been no conviction on either side of the House. All we shall do is to reduce our stature in the councils of the world.
I believe very strongly that the British have a good deal to contribute in world affairs. We have experience which is vital to the world, particularly at this time. I regret anything that diminishes our stature in the world, and the whole House should regret it.
§ Mr. John Loveridge (Upminster)Is not this order the only realistic way of bringing home to those in authority in Iran that the seizing of hostages is wicked and evil in the context of the Muslim religion or any other religion? It is the only way in which we can be seen to oppose this wrong, and to support decency and our allies in the United States, whatever reservations we may have about certain aspects of their policy.
§ Mr. StoddartWe must try to look at the matter from the point of view of Iran as well as from the point of view of the United States and ourselves. We must understand that in Iran there has been a long history of Governments being imposed on that country by Western nations—first by the British, and then, in 1953, by the United States. We are unlikely to convince the Iranians that our intentions, and particularly the intentions of the United States, are honest and in the best interests of Iran.
§ Mr. DalyellFollowing the interesting intervention by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Loveridge), does my hon. Friend understand that in the Shi'ite religion this is highly relevant? Martyrdom holds a high place, and in those circumstances the argument that he puts forward is valid.
§ Mr. StoddartMy hon. Friend is, of course, an expert in these religions, and I am grateful for his instruction. It has been amply shown that people of Iranian stock are prepared to undertake martyrdom on behalf of their religion or on behalf of any deeply-felt conviction.
I believe that if we are to secure the release of the hostages and to rebuild the bridges that we and the rest of the Western world have had with Iran, and which we should seek for the future, we shall not do it by issuing threats and 1625 by imposing sanctions. We shall achieve it only by patient diplomacy over a long period. That is the only answer, and the only action which has any prospect of success. I sincerely believe that the only way in which we can achieve our objective is through quiet and patient diplomacy. Because I believe that, I shall vote against this order, as I voted against the previous order.
§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)I think we are into martyrdom with a vengeance. I shall not go over all the points that have been raised. I wish to direct my comments to article 4 of the order, but first I should like to underline some of the points that were made earlier.
These debates have confirmed my view that we were right to oppose these orders and sanctions from beginning to end. I do not accept the argument about loyalty. This is the most misguided form of loyalty I have ever seen. To my mind, loyalty comes from wise counsel. It does not come from saying " We will back you up whatever you do." That leads to a blind loyalty that ultimately leads to dictatorship, and in extreme conditions to the concentration camp. That is blind loyalty. That is not what we are after.
What we are after is to put pressure on a country which is holding hostages totally irrationally and unreasonably but with a history behind it of problems with the United States which in the minds of the Iranians makes that action perfectly rational and reasonable. We might disagree with that, but that is it from their point of view. Our job is to help the Iranians to come to a different conclusion and to help the United States to act in a more thoughtful and wise manner, and to recognise that elections for presidential posts should not be fought in this manner. That is what it is about.
I think I am right in saying that it was the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who pointed out that the Soviet Union is concerned about the stability of the American governmental system. That is a wise comment, because we often assume that dictatorships are unstable and democracies are stable. That is not necessarily so.
1626 It ought to be significant to us in this country that we are having this debate on the anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation. We know what Dunkirk did to this country. It stiffened the resistance—exactly as the bombing of North Vietnam stiffened the resistance of the North Vietnamese. As a number of my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members have indicated, the actions that we are taking against Iran, if they are noticed—I doubt that they will be even noticed—will be used by the Ayatollah Khomeini to organise his resistance in the way that has been described. [Interruption.] I have not voted for anything on this matter, and I have no intention of doing so.
As I said in an earlier debate on this matter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) made an excellent speech and a first-class analysis of the problem but, unfortunately, he came to the wrong conclusion. It is as simple as that. [Interruption.] I find my position and that of my right hon. Friend much better than the sort of position that is being argued by Conservative Members, where there is a recognition that this is nonsense and that it has no effective force, and yet they still troop through the Lobby in order to support it, on the blind loyalty principle. That is what is happening. That makes a mockery of this country and does nothing to help a delicate international situation.
I turn to article 4—enforcement. Being relatively new to this House, even after a year here, I am not fully aware of what this can mean, but, as I understand it, relating, as it does, to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1978, presumably it gets the powers of enforcement from that order, which is re-enacted in this order. Will this order really be enforced in the way that is spelt out? We are told that the 1978 order concerns Customs powers for demanding evidence of destination, offences in connection with applications for licences and, very interestingly, powers of search.
In my constituency of Hammersmith, North there are many small businesses which have sprung up very largely from the Asian community, in which goods are transported via Iran. What is to happen in that situation? After the order has been brought in tonight, shall I be faced with a situation in which, suddenly, the Customs and Excise people descend on 1627 some part of North Hammersmith and raid one of the Asian shops in the area, with the idea of finding goods that are now in one of the small supermarkets?
This is not a minor point. I do not invent it at this time of the night for fun. It suddenly struck me as an important point. The order provides for powers of search.
Will the Government try to enforce these measures? They have two options. They can decide not to bother and to turn a blind eye to everything that happens. There are one or two hon. Members who say that that is what will happen. That is the cynical view. If the Government are to enforce these measures, observance and enforcement will become as crucial as the question of penalties. Enforcement must be carried out either by getting information about the destination of goods or by finding the goods in Britain. That involves Customs and Excise officers searching premises. Does the Minister intend Customs and Excise officers to check on the industries to which I have referred, which are holding a variety of goods that have come from Iran? I would welcome an answer from the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)I have two questions for the Minister. First, how will he monitor the way in which the regulations work? There seem to be two strands running through hon. Members' feelings on this issue. There are those who feel that sanctions will not work but that possibly some of their constituents will lose out in their export businesses as a result of sanctions.
Everybody will be interested to know how effectively the sanctions are working and how much trade is being lost. The Department will be monitoring carefully to ascertain whether there is sanctions-breaking. I hope that it will monitor what other countries are doing, apart from what Britain is doing. There is the suspicion that, although some countries' legislatures were more enthusiastic about sanctions than we were, they might be looking for ways round their legislation pretty quickly. I hope that we shall be told the extent to which sanctions are being effective, the effect that they are having on our exports and on the exports of 1628 other countries and how far others are finding ways to get round them.
I hope that the Minister will tell us how the monitoring will be done and whether he will be prepared to bring the information before the House at regular intervals. Obviously it is a short period since the order came into effect. However, I ask the Ministers what orders have been stopped as a consequence. He should be able to tell us within a month the extent to which the orders have worked and the impact that they have had on trade with Britain and on the trade of other member States of the EEC that have participated in sanctions.
My second question concerns licences. We still do not have a clear indication whether there will be any way in which an individual firm will be able to appeal if its licence is revoked. It is an extremely important issue. Is it one that can be raised only in the House? It seems grossly unfair that, in the absence of any appeal procedure, a firm may have its licence revoked.
I hope that the Minister will answer my questions on monitoring, reporting to the House, and licensing.
§ Mr. ParkinsonI shall try to deal with a number of the issues that have been raised in the debate.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) asked me whether there was a continuing diplomatic effort or whether the Community's efforts were merely going into imposing sanctions. There is a continuing diplomatic effort. EEC ambassadors in Tehran are seeking continually to find ways of bringing to the attention of the Iranian Government the need to obtain the release of the hostages. There have been various visitors to Tehran recently, including Mr. Daoudi of the United Nations commission of inquiry and the Chancellor of Austria, Mr. Kreisky. Two other leading Socialists were there last week. Their efforts, on their own initiative, were welcomed and supported in every way by Western Governments, but none of them made the slightest difference. Representations were made by a wide variety of bodies, but there is no sign that they have made any impression on the Government.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) rose——
1629§ Mr. ParkinsonI hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not give way.
This is not an "either/or" situation. Diplomatic initiatives will continue. We shall seek to get over our point of view and to persuade the Iranians. We have not succeeded, and that is why the Community it taking a second step.
When Community Ministers met on 22 April, they outlined a programme of political action. They took that action. They delayed any further discussion of economic sanctions in the hope that their political initiatives would work. However, they did not. Reluctantly, member States of the Nine and of the other OECD countries concluded that sanctions would have to be imposed.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil referred again to the clarity of the orders. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) made the same point. If the Government had difficulty in drafting the orders, it was because they tried to do so in the spirit that the House made clear that it anticipated. We should have had no difficulty and would have obtained absolute clarity if we had drafted an order to the effect that nothing would leave this country for Iran from this day henceforth. That would have been straightforward.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil spoke about the way in which we sought to preserve the rights of those who have continued to trade with Iran. He mentioned the different categories of activity. I accept that there is some imprecision. The Government do not welcome that, but it stems from our wish to meet the needs and demands of the House.
The hon. Member for Keighley spoke of the difficulties of licensing. He said that he would prefer a system of licensing because it would give some certainty. There would be another certainty about licensing. It would have broken the existing flow of contracts. We would have had to suspend business until we had set up a licensing procedure. The hon. Gentleman should realise that there would have been a flood of applications for licences. Those licences would have to be processed. The Government would also be breaking the undertaking that 1630 they gave the House not to interfere with existing contracts.
We have considered the issues carefully. We take the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments extremely seriously. We congratulate the Committee. It has come forward with its comments at short notice, having been given only a little time to consider the orders. I am sure that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil realises why so little time was available. We wished to give the House an opportunity to comment on the orders as soon as possible once they had been laid. When he spoke about fairness he automatically assumed that the Government would seek to administer the orders unfairly. He had no ground for making that assertion. The Department, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and our officials will seek to administer the orders as fairly as possible. I have explained that the power to revoke licences is residuary. We do not expect to use it frequently. It would be used in exceptional circumstances if, for instance, we discovered that licences had been obtained by fraud.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked four questions. Some of them were more perceptive than others. He asked a number of hypothetical questions about such matters as what would happen if all the hostages were killed. I should prefer those questions to remain hypothetical and I do not propose to answer them.
Let me tell my hon. Friend how the orders may be revoked. The order under discussion is made under the 1939 Act and it can be revoked by another order of the Secretary of State made under the 1939 Act. It would not be subject to parliamentary procedure and would be brought into force the day after it was made. The Iran (Trading Sanctions) Order would be ended by means of an Order in Council under section 2(3) of the 1980 Act. The order would automatically cease to have effect, since its enabling powers would have disappeared. Such an Order in Council would not be subject to parliamentary approval and would come into effect straight away. The Government have built into the orders the ability to revoke them with all speed once the emergency that they are designed to meet has ended.
1631 My hon. Friend asked what estimates had been made of the likely loss of business. It is not possible to provide an exact figure, because we are dealing with a fluid position. My hon. Friend also asked whether I knew of any instance in which sanctions had worked. Since taking part in recent debates in the House, I have visited Zimbabwe and talked to people who were subject to sanctions. I can tell my hon. Friends that there is immense relief that sanctions have been lifted. There is no doubt that they were a problem for Zimbabwe. They cost the country a lot of foreign exchange and everybody I met was delighted that they had been lifted. That suggests that they were having an unpleasant effect. My hon. Friend asked me for one example. I hope that I have given it to him.
The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) made some kind remarks based on our days together as opposing Whips on Finance Bill Committees. Tonight's proceedings and the hour at which they are taking place have brought back memories of those days. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on doing something that has not been done as often as it ought to have been done today, namely, deploring the position that the hostages find themselves in. The hon. Gentleman made the point effectively and strongly and described their position as an outrage. He is right, and I thank him for making the point.
The hon. Gentleman and I differ because he believes that the order will not help. I do not agree with him. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). What conclusions would the Iranians draw from the fact that, although they had broken a convention that is the basis of world diplomacy, it was " business as usual " and that the British and all the other OECD countries would continue to supply them with anything that they wanted to buy? Would they draw the conclusion that they were doing something that was to be deplored? I suggest that the answer is " No ".
The OECD countries have decided simultaneously to impose sanctions that are designed not to bring Iran to its knees but to bring home to the Iranians that their behaviour is intolerable. That is worth doing, and I believe that it will be understood far better than the nonsensical 1632 " When you tell your friends that you will not co-operate with them, you are really proving to them that you are their friend " attitude that we have heard tonight.
I thank the hon. Member for Swindon for highlighting the cause of the problem. It is a simple one. The Iranian regime has broken a convention which is the basis of our diplomatic system. It is to be deplored. The treatment of the hostages is to be deplored. The orders are not a strong way for Britain to demonstrate its feelings, but they are a way. If they are not as strong as they could be, that is because the House did not want them to be. I believe that even in their present state, coupled with the action that our friends in the OECD are taking, they will be a sign to the Iranians that they had better mend their ways.
The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) asked how the sanctions would operate. I touched on that in my opening remarks. I said that we had considered carefully whether we should institute a system of licences. It would have been cumbersome, it would have involved a substantial increase in bureaucracy and it would have created a machine that might have been redundant before it was finished. We came to the conclusion that that would not be sensible. We decided instead that sanctions should be operated on the basis of declarations by exporters that the goods involved were not prohibited exports under either of the orders. Firms will be required to enter details of their exports with Customs, together with a declaration before any goods are shipped. They will then be able to export their goods. However, Customs has the power to go to their offices and investigate their documents to find out whether the basis of the declaration is truthful. It will be using that power. That is a better solution. Customs will check goods as they leave, check the declarations and search the evidence. It will be up to the exporter to demonstrate that the declaration is based on a set of circumstances that justified making it. That is the way in which we shall administer the orders.
In the earlier debate it was suggested that we were mugs to take a tough line when no one else was doing so. That suggestion has rather disappeared during our debate. The Community has set up a group of technical experts to survey the 1633 orders and regulations made by member States. As I explained earlier, individual member States have their own way of legislating and making regulations. The technical committee will consider the regulations and ensure that, as far as possible, they conform. It will also monitor the way in which the regulations are operated by member States. There will be an opportunity for us to make sure that countries are moving forward in concert.
Contracts for future services are no longer included, which is an example of how we are determined to work in concert with our allies. We took the view that, since a substantial number of our allies were not taking sanctions against contracts for future services, we should not do so. It was the examination of other people's regulations that enabled us to come to that conclusion.
§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose——
1634§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire)Give way.
§ Mr. ParkinsonIf the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) returns to where he usually discusses such matters with his hon. Friends, perhaps we shall be able to proceed with a serious debate.
There are measures in hand to enforce these regulations.
§ Mr. DalyellOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Three hours ago, the hon. Member—
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Question put, That the Question be now put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 15.
1635| Division No. 337] | AYES | 2.39 am |
| Alexander, Richard | Gow, Ian | Murphy, Christopher |
| Ancram, Michael | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds) | Needham, Richard |
| Arnold, Tom | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Nelson, Anthony |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Grist, Ian | Newton, Tony |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Gummer, John Selwyn | Normanton, Tom |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll) | Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham |
| Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Best, Keith | Hawksley, Warren | Parris, Matthew |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Heddle, John | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Henderson, Barry | Penhaligon, David |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hill, James | Pollock, Alexander |
| Blackburn, John | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Renton, Tim |
| Brinton, Tim | Hurd, Hon Douglas | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Brittan, Leon | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Scott, Nicholas |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Lamont, Norman | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe) | Lawrence, Ivan | Skeet, T. H. H |
| Budgen, Nick | Lee, John | Speller, Tony |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire) |
| Butcher, John | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Squire, Robin |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Loveridge, John | Stevens, Martin |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn) | Lyell, Nicholas | Stradling, Thomas, J. |
| Chapman, Sydney | Macfarlane, Neil | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S) |
| Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | MacGregor, John | Thompson, Donald |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) | MacKay, John (Argyll) | Thorne, Nell (Ilford South) |
| Cope, John | Marlow, Tony | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath) |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Mates, Michael | Viggers, Peter |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Mather, Carol | Waddington, David |
| Dover, Denshore | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Wakeham, John |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartlord) | Mellor, David | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Durant, Tony | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire) |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Mills, lain (Mariden) | Waller, Gary |
| Elliott, Sir William | Mills, Peter (West Devon) | Watson, John |
| Falrgrieve, Russell | Miscampbell, Norman | Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Slev'nage) |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Wheeler, John |
| Farr, John | Moate, Roger | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Monro, Hector | Wolfson, Mark |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Morgan, Geraint | |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Forman, Nigel | Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes) | Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) | Mr. Anthony Berry |
| Gorst, John | Mudd, David | |
| NOES | ||
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Cryer, Bob | Evans, John (Newton) |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | Dalyell, Tarn | McDonald, Dr Oonagh |
| Canavan, Dennis | Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) | Kilfedder, James A. |
| McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Soley, Clive | ELLERS FOR THE NOES |
| Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down) | Stoddart, David | Mr. David Winnick and |
| Ross, Win. (Londonderry) | Welsh, Michael | Mr. Nigel Spearing. |
| Question accordingly agreed to. | ||
| Question put accordingly:— | ||
| The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 15. | ||
| Division No. 338] | AYES | 2.50 am |
| Alexander, Richard | Gorst, John | Murphy, Christopher |
| Ancram, Michael | Gow, Ian | Needham, Richard |
| Arnold, Tom | Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds) | Nelson, Anthony |
| Aeplnwall, Jack | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Newton, Tony |
| Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) | Grist, Ian | Normanton, Tom |
| Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset) | Gummer, John Selwyn | Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham |
| Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon) | Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll) | Parkinson, Cecil |
| Best, Keith | Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Farns, Matthew |
| Bevan, David Gllroy | Hawksley, Warren | Patten, John (Oxford) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Heddle, John | Penhallgon, David |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Henderson, Barry | Pollock, Alexander |
| Blackburn, John | Hill, James | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham) | Rathbone, Tim |
| Braine, Sir Bernard | Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) | Renton, Tim |
| Brinton, Tim | Hunt, John (Ravensbourne) | Sainsbury, Hon Timothy |
| Brlttan, Leon | Hurd, Hon Douglas | Scott, Nicholas |
| Brooke, Hon Peter | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe) | Lamont, Norman | Skeet, T. H. H |
| Budgen, Nick | Lawrence, Ivan | Speller, Tony |
| Bulmer, Esmond | Lee, John | Squire, Robin |
| Butcher, John | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Carlisle, John (Luton West) | Lester, Jim (Beeston) | Stevens, Martin |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) | Stradling, Thomas, J. |
| Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn) | Loveridge, John | Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Lyell, Nicholas | Thompson, Donald |
| Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) | Macfarlane, Nell | Thorne, Nell (Ilford South) |
| Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllfle) | MacGregor, John | Townsend, Cyril D. (Beileyheath) |
| Cope, John | MacKay, John (Argyll) | Viggers, Peter |
| Cranborne, Viscount | Mates, Michael | Waddington, David |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Mather, Carol | Wakeham, John |
| Dover, Denshore | Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Dunn, Robert (Dartford) | Mellor, David | Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire) |
| Durant, Tony | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Waller, Gary |
| Eden, Rt Hon Sir John | Mills, lain (Merlden) | Watson, John |
| Elliott, Sir William | Mills, Peter (West Devon) | Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage) |
| Fairgrieve, Russell | Miscampbell, Norman | Wheeler, John |
| Faith, Mrs Sheila | Mitchell, Davld (Basingstoke) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Farr, John | Moate, Roger | Wolfson, Mark |
| Fenner, Mrs Peggy | Morgan, Geraint | |
| Fisher, Sir Nigel | Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth) | TELLERS FOR THF AYES: |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes) | Mr. Spencer le Marchant and |
| Forman, Nigel | Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester) | Mr. Anthony Berry. |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mudd, David | |
| NOES | ||
| Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) | Klifedder, James A. | Stoddart, David |
| Campbell-Savours, Dale | McKay, Allen (Penistone) | Welsh, Michael |
| Canavan, Dennis | Marlow, Tony | |
| Cryer, Bob | Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Ross, Wm. (Londonderry) | Mr. David Winnick and |
| Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford) | Soley, Clive | Mr. Nigel Spearing. |
| Evans, John (Newton) | ||
| Question accordingly agreed to. | ||
| Resolved, | ||
| That this House approves the Export of Goods (Control) (Iran Sanctions) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 735). |