IRAN (SANCTIONS)

HC Deb 04 June 1980 vol 985 cc1577-607 11.28 pm

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson)

I beg to move, That the Iran (Trading Sanctions) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29 May, be approved. I remind the House why we are seeking approval for the two orders to implement sanctions against Iran. At Luxembourg on 22 April Community Foreign Ministers agreed to proceed with economic sanctions in conformity with the draft United Nations Security Council resolution which was vetoed by the USSR on 13 January.

They agreed that if there was no decisive progress on the release of the hostages by 17 May they would meet again and decide what action to take towards enforcing that Security Council resolution. They decided in the meantime to take a number of political steps. In accordance with the commitment made by the Foreign Secretary, the Government secured the passage of the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act 1980 and at Naples on 18 May the Foreign Ministers of the Nine decided to make the necessary orders to implement the sanctions.

I need not remind the House of the reactions that it expressed to the Naples decision. The House decided, very firmly, against any retrospection on contracts signed before the date of the orders. The Government recognised these very strong views and, as my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced on 20 May, decided to make sure that the orders would not apply to the export of goods under arrangements made before the date of the orders. He also explained that it was our intention to act broadly in line with our Community partners. Our partners in the Community all took action on 22 May by means of decrees or other regulations in acordance with their own legislative procedures. Japan and some other countries have also taken action. I shall have something to say later on how those measures compare with those implemented in the United Kingdom.

We were unable to take action on the same date as our partners and we decided to implement our sanctions on 29 May, with effect from 30 May—the earliest practicable date under our parliamentary and statutory procedures. We have now come, as early as possible after that date, to seek the approval of the House for these orders. Tonight we are asking the House to approve the two orders. In this debate we are considering the Iran (Trading Sanctions) Order 1980, which is an Order in Council made on 29 May under section 1 of the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act 1980, which prohibits the making or performance of contracts for the sale, supply or transport of embargoed goods to Iran. Under section 1(6) of the 1980 Act this order will lapse after 28 days unless it is approved by resolution in each House of Parliament.

The House has debated before the question why orders need to be made under both the 1980 and 1939 Acts. The 1939 Act gives powers to control the exports of goods, the main sanction called for under the United Nations resolution vetoed on 13 January. The 1980 Act enables us to take additional measures in accordance with that resolution. Let me give the House an example. The order under the 1980 Act, as I shall explain, applies to contracts for the supply of goods to persons in Iran, but it would not prevent a person buying goods in the United Kingdom and subsequently exporting them to Iran for his own use. Nor could it do so, because the 1980 Act provides powers only in relation to contracts related to or connected with Iran, and not to sales to persons in this country. Under the 1939 Act we can prevent goods sold in this way from going to Iran.

The Iran (Trading Sanctions) Order 1980 is made under section 1 of the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act 1980. This section gives powers to make such provision in relation to contracts for the sale, supply or transport of goods to Iran as appear to be necessary or expedient in consequence of breaches of international law by Iran in connection with or arising out of the detention of members of the United States embassy. The order extends, by virtue of article 1 (2), to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the dependent territories listed in schedule 2 to that order.

If I may say so, the length of the list is to an extent a tribute to the assiduous work of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who pointed out in the course of various debates in Committee various dependent territories which might be used. I have to tell him that the only reason why the New Hebrides is not included m the list is that it is governed under condominium powers by ourselves and France. However, the authorities have been asked by both Governments to take note of these orders. I might tell the House that we have not yet had a reply from Mr. Jimmy Stevens.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Nor has Diego Garcia replied.

Mr. Parkinson

Article 2 (1) contains a number of definitions, of which two are particularly important. The first is the definition of embargoed goods. All goods are to be embargoed except the foodstuffs and medical products specified in part 1 of schedule 1 to the order, and the other products specified in part II of that schedule if, and only if, sold or supplied for medical or surgical purposes.

The other important definition is that of a contract made before the date on which this Order comes into operation. in article 2 (2). It is provided in article 3(2), following section 1(2)(a) of the 1980 Act, that sanctions are not to apply to contracts for the sale or supply of goods entered into before the order comes into effect.

Article 2(2) defines what is a contract made before the date on which this Order comes into operation. for the purposes of this exemption. First, a contract made before the date of the order continues to be exempt if it is modified, amended or extended after that date. The reason for this is that, quite frequently, both parties to a contract agree to minor changes to the terms of a contract—for example, to delivery dates or perhaps prices. We would not wish an otherwise exempt contract to be frustrated by sanctions because of the sort of everyday changes that business men make. However, modifications must not be so substantial that a contract becomes, in effect, a new contract. If that happens, it cannot escape sanctions on the ground that the contract has only been modified.

Article 2(2) also provides that the exemption for goods sold or supplied under existing contracts shall apply to sales under new contracts made in continuation of an established course of business dealing. To qualify under this exemption, new contracts will have to be made between the same parties. They must relate to goods of the same or similar class, and be in continuation of a course of business dealing which existed immediately before the date on which the order came into operation—30 May 1980.

Some exports to Iran are made under commercial arrangements which, although they may not amount to legally enforceable contracts, reflect long-standing and regular business commitments. It would be inequitable, in our opinion, to draw a distinction between this sort of longstanding arrangement and formal long-term supply contracts, and we have therefore excluded such arrangements from the effect of sanctions.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

My hon. Friend has been dealing with article 2(2) in a fairly clear manner, but has he read the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and will he deal with it at this stage of his speech in respect of article 2(2) in particular?

Mr. Parkinson

My hon. Friend has anticipated my next remarks. We have read very carefully the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and I propose to deal now with its comment on this matter.

The Committee has given as its view that Although the meaning of this expression will be critical for deciding in many cases whether conduct is in breach of the order, and therefore criminal, it seems to the Committee that there will be many kinds of cases as to which it will not be possible to say with confidence whether they fall within it. There are clear criteria spelt out in article 2(2) that will enable exporters to judge where they stand. For exports under new contracts to be exempt they must involve established trade links, the same parties and the same or a similar class of goods. These criteria will, I suggest, be sufficiently clear for most exporters to be sure, perhaps with legal advice, when they will be acting within the law.

I expect that there will still be some cases in which exporters will find themselves in doubt. The only sure way of avoiding that would have been to introduce a system of export licences. The Government rejected that as an unjustifiable interruption of trade under existing commitments which are not to be prevented by the sanctions. In other words, we believe that the introduction of a wholesale system of licensing—which would probably have been the only way—would have been a mistake, would have been cumbersome, would have been expensive and would not, in the circumstances have been justified.

I remind the House that the moment the hostages are released, we hope that the order will lapse. I do not think that the creation of a large bureaucratic machinery is justified in those circumstances.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his explanation of that point. The last thing that I wish to do is to make a difficult task any more difficult. With respect, my hon. Friend should have continued the quotation from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In contrast to what he said, it goes on to say: In oral evidence to the Committee the representatives of the Department of Trade and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office acknowledged that that was the case. In short, the officials said that there was a problem in establishing the sort of cases that do, or do not, fall within the order. My hon. Friend made a perfectly fair point when he said that he did not want an elaborate structure. I agree with that. But it is not satisfactory to leave the business man and the exporter in as confused a position as that in which the officials and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments found themselves.

Mr. Parkinson

I note my hon. Friend's remarks. I think that I have given him the answer, which is that the alternative procedure that we would have had to implement to do what he wants would have been a system of export licences, which would have been difficult to administer and expensive. I wonder whether, in practice, it will be as difficult as he suggests. In theory in may be so, but in practice people will know.

I shall give an illustration of the sort of arrangement that we have in mind. There are a number of joint ventures where a United Kingdom company is dealing with an Iranian company in which it may have an interest but where there is no formal agreement between them because it is not necessary. We believe that the absence of a formal agreement should not result in that trade being stopped when somebody who had signed a contract on 29 May for a first-ever dealing with Iran would be allowed to go through with that transaction. I accept that it is a difficult order. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that it is a matter to which we have given a great deal of thought.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch and Lymington)

Does my hon. Friend think that what we are doing in the House tonight will help to release the hostages?

Mr. Parkinson

Yes.

The remainder of article 2 provides for the interpretaion of a number of largely technical terms contained in the order, and for the interpretations of the tariff headings given in the schedule.

Article 3 is the main operative provision of the order. It prohibits the making and performance of contracts for sale of embargoed goods to Iran from the United Kingdom or any dependent territory. As I have explained, article 3(2) exempts sales under existing contracts. Article 3(4) provides that nothing in the article overrides any other restrictions that may exist on the sale or supply of goods to Iran. For instance, computers will continue to require an export licence. The only other part of article 3 to which I wish to refer is article 3(5), the purpose of which is to give the Customs the power to enforce this order.

Article 4 prohibits contracts for the transport of enbargoed goods to Iran from anywhere in the United Kingdom or from any of the dependent territories. The prohibition covers carriage by ships and aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, and all land carriage. Scheduled passenger services by air or sea are unaffected because the prohibition covers only goods and not people. There are two exceptions to the prohibition. The first is contracts made before the order came into effect. This mirrors the position with contracts for the supply of goods, and means that carriers may honour all their existing contracts.

Secondly, the personal effects and professional equipment of passengers are also exempt. Clearly, if people are to be free to travel between the United Kingdom and Iran, provision has to be made for their personal effects.

Article 5 provides penalties for offences under the order. Article 5(1) restricts the institution of proceedings. Article 5(3) enables proceedings to be brought before the appropriate court having jurisdiction in the place where the defendant is at the time.

By virtue of article 5(2), where a contract for the transport of goods to Iran is prohibited by article 4, the owner or master of a ship registered in the United Kingdom or in any territory to which the order extends the operator or commander of an aircraft so registered who makes or performs such a contract, is guilty of an offence. As a result, a contract for the carriage of goods from the United Kingdom to Iran, for example, does not escape sanctions by being made outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stevenage)

Will my hon. Friend explain how this will affect trading through third countries? Will this in any way be caught under these orders?

Mr. Parkinson

No.

Article 6 applies various Customs powers, including the right to demand evidence of the declared destination of exports and powers of search, to the enforcement of article 3(5). As I said, article 3(5) prohibits the exportation of goods in performance of a prohibited contract.

The final article of the order relates to licences. The Secretary of State or the governor of a scheduled territory, as appropriate, has powers to license exceptions to the prohibition on new contracts for the supply of goods to Iran and new contracts for their carriage to Iran. These powers are intended for use only in exceptional cases, and the purpose of article 7 is to make it clear that licences are not irrevocable, but that the Secretary of State or a governor has power to vary or revoke any licence which may be granted.

We do not expect the frequent issue of licences, and we have certainly no intention of setting up any form of licensing system. A general licence has, however, been granted permitting the export of various means of payment.

Hon. Members may ask, why have the power at all? Perhaps I could give an example of a case in which we might wish to issue licences. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), during the debate on the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill, asked the Government to give an undertaking that goods could continue to be exported to Iran for humanitarian reasons. Relief supplies, after an earthquake, for instance, is one possibility. We might need to grant licences to ensure that such humanitarian supplies could be contracted for and delivered to Iran.

The Joint Committee correctly pointed out that unfettered power is given to modify or revoke licences and that there is no right of appeal. We realise that this is a broad power, but we believe that it is necessary. For instance, it might be desirable that licences obtained by fraud should be revoked. I remind my hon. Friend and others that the Secretary of State would be answerable to the House in such cases.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Is my hon. Friend saying that in the case of fraud, where he wished to prevent a transaction taking place, that should not be justifiable in the courts but should be blotted out by the Secretary of State without any appeal to a court of law?

Mr. Parkinson

I am simply saying that one of the occasions that we had in mind when we took this power was that if we discovered that a licence had been obtained by fraud we might wish to have the power to revoke that licence. As I said, the Secretary of State would have to answer to the House of Commons were he to use that power.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

Putting aside the example of fraud, if, for example, the Secretary of State were to modify or revoke a licence from a trader who was operating in good faith, for whatever reasons, that trader would have no recourse to the courts. Is that not a serious limitation on the rights of the individual concerned?

Mr. Parkinson

I accept that this is a serious matter, and the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. I repeat that the Act under which this order is made is designed to have a very limited life. It may be necessary, should we discover that fraud has been used for obtaining a licence, to act quickly. Therefore, the Secretary of State has taken this power, and the House would have the right to call him to account.

We believe that United Kingdom sanctions are likely to be broadly similar in effect to those adopted by other Community countries and Japan. They have, by decree or other regulation, introduced systems of licensing for exports to Iran. Naturally, the procedures adopted in each country vary.

The Community countries have announced that exports under contracts signed since 4 November 1979 will not be licensed. The pattern of trade between some of our major Community partners, as well as Japan and Iran, is, in some respects, different from ours. They are carrying out some large projects in Iran under contracts signed before 4 November. United Kingdom contractors are not currently carrying out any major projects in Iran. Thus, it is not possible to generalise about the likely effects of sanctions simply by comparing the regulations that each country has made. Community countries will be keeping in close touch with each other about the application of the measures. A technical committee of experts has been set up in Brussels which will monitor both the imposition and the effects of sanctions.

I ask the House to approve the order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

I remind the House that we are taking the two orders separately.

11.53 pm

Mr. Edward Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil)

Yet again we have heard an unhappy and unconvincing presentation of Government policy by the Minister of State. These two orders are, alas, the remnants of a policy which is now in tatters, and the Government have no one else but themselves to blame for the position that they are in.

The original policies were brought forward and promoted in the House without any real conviction or commitment by the Ministers concerned, who were then under pressure from both sides of the House. Nods and winks were given about the exemptions of existing contracts, and then the Foreign Secretary made a foolish commitment in Naples that would have made sanctions retrospective. Within hours of announcing that commitment to the House, the Government were forced to make the most speedy U-turn in recent political history. The luckless Lord Privy Seal had to announce yet another change of policy.

In making these orders, the Government have gone even further in extending the exemptions which we debated during the Committee stage of the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill. Under this order not only the contracts made before the date of the order will be exempt, but any extension, modification or amplification of an existing contract will also be exempt. We shall certainly seek further clarification as to the meaning of those words.

The sum total of these twists and turns of policy is that the policy is in tatters, and it lacks any form of conviction. The credibility of Ministers on this matter is nil. Does anyone now believe that our American allies and friends feel that we have stood stoutly by them by introducing this sanctions orders? Does anyone believe that the Iranian authorities and so-called students will be moved one inch by these sanctions?

I suspect, frankly, that our American friends will feel more than a little peeved by what may be cynically seen as mere cosmetic and gesture politics. The Iranians will be stiffened in their obstinacy, and irritated rather than brought under any serious economic presure. The idea that this order and the subsequent order will have anything but the most marginal effect on the efforts that are being made to obtain the release of the hostages is frankly laughable.

When we debated the Bill, we found it full of ambiguities and confusions. Some of that confusion and ambiguity has now been carried forward into the orders. I specifically refer to article 2(2), which is repeated in the second order and was quoted by the Minister. It says: references to a contract made before the date on which this Order comes into operation include a reference to such contracts the terms of which have been modified, amplified or extended after the date on which this Order comes into operation, and also include a reference to a contract made in continuation of an established course of buisiness dealing ", and so on.

The whole of that paragraph is clouded in uncertainty and ambiguity, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned. We are the only people who feel confused. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was similarly confused. The relevant paragraph of the Committee's report has been quoted. It said that there would be many cases as to which it will not be possible to say with confidence whether or not they fall within it. The other point—perhaps the point not made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds in his intervention—is that, as I understand it, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was very concerned that criminal proceedings could flow from the article—as the Committee said, whether conduct is in breach of the Order, and therefore criminal ". We need much greater clarification of the relevance, significance and meaning of this paragraph, especially in view of the fact that if it were breached it would be not some minor civil offence but a criminal offence, which would be considered and treated as such. That was one of the additional points that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments made about the ambiguity and confusion over the meaning of this paragraph.

Let us try to test this paragraph by a specific example. Reading the press reports on the day after these orders were made, I noted that Department of Trade officials were quoted in a variety of anonymous ways. I quote one press report. A Department of Trade official is reputed to have explained this paragraph in the following way: A company with a contract to sell, for example, fridges, would be able to sign a new contract for, say, washing machines, but not for new cars. Let us take that as the best illustration. We all know how the departmental press briefings occur. On the whole they are accurate. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us whether that is a reasonably accurate description and practical illustration of what this paragraph means—that is, if a company has been selling fridges to Iran and then finds a demand for washing machines, within the terms of this paragraph it could sell washing machines.

As the Member of Parliament representing the largest washing machines factory in Europe, I have a rather particular interest in the proposition. [Interruption.] I shall ignore that gibe from the Minister. Is that not a good illustration or example, and will he confirm, as it was obviously from a Department of Trade briefing, that that is the meaning of article 2(2)?

When the Minister was defending the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill he explained lucidly the difference between the use of powers under the 1939 Act, which will feature in the second order tonight, and the order promulgated under the new Act. He explained why we had to have new legislation and why we had to sit up for 16 hours to enact it. He said: there are gaps in the provisions of that Act "— that is, the 1939 Act— which the Bill seeks to fill. For instance, that Act does not deal with future service contracts ".—[Official Report, Monday 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 1004.] Where in the order is there a reference to future service contracts? Service contracts were one of the main features of the Government's case.

Mr. Parkinson

When the House passed the Bill, it was giving the Government the power to implement the United Nations resolution which was vetoed by the USSR. It was an enabling measure. Throughout the debates we said that we would not move further than our partners. We said that we would move in concert with them. Our partners are not introducing sanctions on future service contracts. Let the hon. Gentleman come clean. Is he complaining because we are not doing more than our partners, or is he complaining because the Government are honouring their undertaking that they would not?

Mr. Rowlands

I am trying to ascertain exactly what the Government are doing. One of their major arguments for forcing the House to enact the Bill in a short time was the major gap in the 1939 Act for future service contracts. However, I am thankful to say that such contracts do not appear in the order. That is because our European partners have not included them in their measures. It is possible that the House will be presented with a further order to cover service contracts. I am not urging the Minister to go any further. I am merely trying to ascertain how far the Government have gone and why they have gone so far.

It is not only the issue of service contracts which aroused the interest of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and which should arouse the interest of the House. The hon. Gentleman skirted penalties. I ask him to comment on the Committee's reference to the penalty provisions in the order. It was not exactly complimentary. The second paragraph of the Committee's report states: The effect of the Order in this respect is that the Order will be varied as to the penalty for summary conviction by the operation of Orders made under another Act ". That is not the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act, and not the order, but the Criminal Law Act 1977. The relevant provisions of that measure do not apply to orders made under subsequent Acts. The Committee continues: This appears to the Committee to be an unexpected use of the powers of the Iran Act, especially bearing in mind that Orders under the Criminal Law Act are subject only to negative resolution proceduring ". We debated the need for the House to scrutinise these measures and the comment of the committee is significant.

The Minister could have done the House of Commons the courtesy of addressing himself to that issue. He could have said that the Government do not agree for certain reasons. He should have tackled head-on the valid point made by the Committee.

The Minister did not mention another comment that appears in the same report. He was challenged about the power to modify or revoke a licence. That challenge was right. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds also challenged the Minister on that point. The Committee's words were not exactly complimentary. It refers to an "unfettered power" to modify or revoke a licence granted under the order. It states: Neither Order contains any provision for an appeal against any such modification or revocation, and the effect of conferring an unfettered discretion to modify or revoke is that except in rare circumstances, there would be no right of appeal to the Courts. Unfettered power" is a strong term. The House deserves a better explanation than the Minister gave in his opening statement. Several hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. We shall have an opportunity to raise other questions when we discuss the other order. The time scale is important. What impact does the Minister think these orders will have on the tragic situation of the hostages? Does he believe that the orders will make one jot of difference to whether the hostages are released?

The Minister defended some of the arbitrary and capricious aspects of this order. He said that he did not expect the orders to remain in force for long. However, we do not know whether he was referring to weeks or months. He said that we did not want a licence system and that we must accept the arbitrary powers of the Secretary of State. The Government say that they hope the order's use will prove marginal. They expect the orders to become irrelevant shortly, when the hostages have been released. What is the time scale?

Perhaps the order will remain in force for a long time. Sadly there is not much evidence that either the threat of sanctions or their implementation are having much effect on the obstinate Iranian authorities and the so-called students. The American hostages seem no nearer to release.

Perhaps the Minister will say whether this is the only order that he intends to make under the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act 1980. Are there more to come that will cover future service contracts? Are these two orders the sum total of the sanctions that we are expected to implement to assist in the release of the hostages? I fear that in a few months, the order having been implemented, the hostages will not have been released. Our American friends may then ask us to impose greater sanctions, or to put forward alternative policies. What will our response be?

Mr. Dalyell

Is it not relevant that some hon. Members are very bothered, to put it no higher, about the 14,000 American military personnel who are apparently being sent to Diego Garcia, together with seven pre-positioning ships and tanks? Why put tanks on an Indian Ocean atoll? That question must be asked.

Mr. Rowlands

While that serious issue is not irrelevant in the general context of the policy, I fear that I should be swiftly ruled out of order if I were to take up my hon. Friend's remarks.

How does the Minister see the order working? I want a simple answer to the following question: is this the last order that the House is to be called upon to agree to under the sanctions legislation?

12.10 am

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Like most of my hon. Friends, I found myself in a dilemma in approaching the orders, as I did in approaching the legislation. I want to support the United States and to demonstrate our total abhorrence of the actions of the Iranians in holding the American diplomats, and apparently the only method by which the House and the people of this country are able to do that is to approve the sanction order.

Yet it is the most laughable order. It is full of holes, it makes no sense, it cannot work and, in my view, it is not intended to work. However, I shall vote for it, though in the knowledge that I am taking part in gesture politics, simply in order to demonstrate to the President of the United States, who may not be President a year from now, that at a time of his difficulties and high emotions among the American people the British Government and Parliament will not overtly pick a quarrel. That is the only reason why I shall, with the greatest reluctance, support the Government.

I do not envy my hon. Friends, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office the task to which they have been required to put their hand. I admire my hon. Friend's gallantry in stoutly defending an order which I suspect he knows is indefensible. I hope that he will not construe my remarks as being directed at him. He is an admirable Minister for Trade.

I wish to deal specifically with article 2(2)—the dog's dinner of what contracts can be extended, modified or amplified—and article 3(2) on the sale or supply of goods. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) said that refrigerators can continue to be sold and that washing machines could be added to the extent that they extended, modified or amplified fridges, but that the principle would not extend as far as motor cars.

In my constituency, the sugar beet industry has had a variety of contracts with Iran to give technical advice on the propagation of sugar beet seed. That has been useful to the Iranians in the Caspian area. There are matters that I should like the Minister to deal with on behalf of my constituents.

If sugar beet know-how is to continue to be supplied to Iran, can the provision be extended to carrots and turnips, on the ground that they, too, are roots? Can it be extended to the construction of sugar refineries and packaging businesses, which run into hundreds of millions of pounds? I am hopeful that we shall get such an order. It may not be too well accepted in the United States if we extend sugar beet seed technology on the basis of this order to the provision of a £500,000 complex for sugar refining and manufacture. What does the order mean? Could it be extended to cover the provision of chocolate, mintoes and, dare I say, humbugs, on the ground that sugar is an in-dispendable contributor to those comestibles? It is not good enough to say that most people will know what it means, and in any case they can go to the courts. My hon. Friend rather shrugged the matter aside by saying that, in any event, if the Secretary of State suspected irregularity or fraud he could wash out the courts and make an order regardless, with no appeal or other justiciable procedure. Our business men are entitled to have clearer instructions.

I return to my simple question: does the provision of sugar beet seed technology and know-how to Iran lend itself under this order to extension to the provision of carrots, turnips and other roots crops, the building of refineries and sugar packaging plants and chocolate and sweets?

Mr. Dalyell

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is standing in the very place where, in 1962–63, with devastating effect, the late Sir Gerald Nabarro argued about anomalies in purchase tax? Are we not back in that fantastic situation, which was brilliantly exposed by Sir Gerald Nabarro?

Mr. Griffiths

I recall the argument about whether gramophone records were graphite and therefore under one quota, or whether they were musical instruments and under a different one. Such problems could also arise with this order.

At one stage I was a director of Crane-Fruehauf. We had extensive and successful business in Iran. We shipped large numbers of components for trailers and other types of heavy lorry to Iran for assembly. Suppose that that business were continuing. It is to some extent under British control, although no longer under complete control. Would article 2(2) permit the Crane-Freuhauf business in East Anglia to extend the supply of trailer parts to Iran to the assembly of total trailer units, which would be a natural extension under the terms of this section?

Would it be permissible, under the modification aspect of the article, to add refrigeration units, which are part of the normal business of trailers, dumper trucks, container wagons and the tractors that pull them? I presume that it would. It is a natural extension of the business, and is precisely what Crane-Fruehauf has been hoping to achieve in Iran.

Let us go on. There is extension, modification and amplification. Does it follow, perhaps to push the argument a little far, that in the provision of trailer units and refrigeration vehicles to the transport system of Iran it would be reasonable to provide road-building equipment so that the vehicles might have roads on which to travel? I do not know, I do not believe that Crane-Fruehauf knows, and I suspect that the Minister does not know.

I believe that it is the Government's duty to ensure that our business men—our exporters, whom we are always urging to do better—have a measure of clarity, which they are not receiving from the House.

Mr. Rowlands

Especially as they will be subject to criminal proceedings if they get it wrong.

Mr. Griffiths

I was about to make that point.

I draw attention to article 5(2): Where a contract prohibited by Article 4 is made or performed by a person who is at that time the owner or master of a ship, or … the operator or commander of an aircraft ". In answer to an intervention, my hon. Friend said that it did not apply to business arising from third countries, and I was grateful to hear that. It is entirely consistent with what he said throughout Second Reading and in Committee.

I presume that the position will now be that if some goods that the Iranians wanted arose in the United Kingdom but found their way, in one way or another, to Ireland, it would be perfectly lawful for the commander of a British aircraft or ship to pick them up from Shannon or from Cork and to transport them to the Gulf or Iran, but unlawful if he picked up the same goods from Liverpool or from Bristol.

It may be that my hon. Friend will say that it would be a question of the intention of the manufacturer and the maker of the contract at the point where he let the goods leave the plant or port in the United Kingdom. I agree with my hon. Friend when he says that he does not want to set up an elaborate system of licences and does not want the bureaucracy and red tape that goes with that. If he does not have that, however, how can he establish that goods made in Bury St. Edmunds or Birmingham and sent off to Ireland or some other third country, possibly Turkey, and then picked up by British vessels, are lawful? In my view, this part of the order is a dog's dinner.

I conclude with a double-barrelled appeal to my hon. Friend. After the very great difficulties that the Government had in the House during those prolonged debates it was singularly unfortunate and most embarrassing internationally for the Foreign Secretary at the Naples conferences to get it wrong. He may have been inadequately advised by those who sat in the Box throughout our late night discussion. It was their duty to nudge his elbow in Naples and tell him that what he was agreeing to was not what the House had said. It is a matter which needs further investigation: why was not the Foreign Secretary properly advised at Naples about precisely what the House had agreed?

That being the case, it was all the more important that my right hon. Friend's advisers should not pile one confusion on another. That is why I read with some astonishment the comments of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the orders. If ever there was a case, where officials of the Department should not have allowed their Ministers to get into yet another imbroglio with the House, it is this one. There was enough trouble in the debates that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalycll) initiated. To pile Pelion on Ossa in this case by having yet another problem with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments seems to be lamentable internal management in both the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade.

Mr. Dalyell

Does not the doctrine of ministerial responsibility apply to these matters? It is a bit off to start automatically blaming officials when it was the duty of Foreign Office Ministers to get in touch with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Gentleman states accurately the constitutional position. I am certain that Ministers in this Government at least will always accept the responsibility. I am, however, making my own speech. It is lamentable that the Foreign Secretary should have gone to Naples and not had his elbow jogged when he came to agree to something that the House had not authorised. He then had to disagree.

That is past. What matters is the new situation. Having made one unfortunate misjudgment of what the House of Commons had agreed, we find ourselves presented with yet another set of semi-constitutional objections from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, a senior Committee of the House for which all hon. Members have the greatest respect. I say that in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir G. Page), who, perhaps more than anyone else, over the years has devoted a great deal of time and skill to that Committee. It is exceedingly embarrassing and quite wrong that the Committee should have to come to the House with this powerful argument that in a number of other ways the Government or the Department have got it wrong.

It should not be the case that the Committee has had to advise the House that the form of both orders requires elucidation. It is the job of those who draft legislation to do their elucidation in advance. All hon. Members know that these things can go badly wrong, but it is lamentable that more confusion should have been created. Will the Minister, within the limits that Departments always face when matters can go to court, try to give business men and exporters clear guidance on what is or what is not likely to be permissible, and what is or what is not likely to be pursued against them by the Government in the courts?

I appreciate the difficulties of giving that sort of interpretation. I believe, however, that it is a practical necessity that the Government should carry out.

The central issue is whether the passage of the order will lend comfort to the hostages who languish, still imprisoned, in Iran. Will the order bring nearer the day of their release? I do not know the answer. It will certainly give a measure of comfort to the relatives of the hostages to know that, in this matter, at least, the British, when asked, gave some help to the United States. Whether it will speed up the release of the hostages is a matter of speculation. If it has any effect at all in Iran—I doubt that it will be much—it will be counter-productive. The reaction of the Iranians to what they will construe, rightly or wrongly, as international bullying could be adverse to the purpose that we seek.

Nevertheless, for the reasons that I have given, I shall support the order. I shall do so in the spirit of the Chief Whip of the day when I first came to this place in 1964, following a by-election, in the latter weeks of the then Conservative Government, before they were heavily defeated at the polls. I had the temerity, within six weeks of arriving here, to vote against my Government. The Chief Whip said to me " When you have been here longer, you will understand that there are times when loyalty requires that you support your friends, even when you know they are wrong." My loyalty extends that far.

12.30 am

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Having argued and voted against the Bill under which the order is made, I shall naturally oppose this and the second order. I agree with the epithet which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) attached to it—laughable. It was more laughable when he reached the end of his speech than it had been at the beginning. However, the hon. Member will vote for it, though he has charged a high and, possibly, an excessive price not merely to the Government but to other hon. Members for his vote tonight.

I intend to refer to an aspect to which attention was drawn by the Joint Committee—the matter of penalties. During the Committee stage, as the Minister may recall, I complained that penalties had not been dealt with as they should have been in the parent Act Now we see some of the consequences. One of them is the impropriety, to put it mildly, to which the Joint Committee refers, namely, that the actual penalty at some future time, perhaps a time more distant than that at which the Minister expects the Act to be operative, will be determined not by an order made under this Act but by an order made under the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Another aspect closely linked with that which the Joint Committee did not specifically mention, is perhaps worth a moment's attention by the House. The order lays down as a penalty on summary conviction a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. The statutory maximum is defined in article 5(5) of the order. The 1977 Act gave the Secretary of State power to increase the figures if he thought that they had been rendered out of date by inflation. He has not so thought, curiously enough, in the three years since 1977.

The part of the 1977 Act which is being used in this way by this order does not apply to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, in the Government's wisdom, is still in many respects legislated for separately and not, as should be, as a part of the United Kingdom by Act of this Parliament. Consequently, of course, the orders altering the penalties specified in the 1977 Act do not apply to Northern Ireland. But the Government wanted the order to apply to Northern Ireland, as this is a United Kingdom order and a United Kingdom policy.

I do not know whether the Minister realised what he was doing or why he was doing it, but he had for the first time to make the 1977 Act, which does not apply to Northern Ireland, apply to Northern Ireland in order that the Home Secretary's order—under that Act—increasing the penalities might be operative for the purposes of this order. That is an illustration not only of the difficulties that one encounters when one makes an absurd order for absurd purposes—that is the general situation with the order—but of the special difficulties that arise when one insists on legislating for one part of the United Kingdom differently from the rest of the United Kingdom, and not, as one should, by a United Kingdom Act.

That is not the first time that I have brought that lesson to the attention of the House, and not the first time that I have done so at a fairly late hour. I keep on hoping that it will be the last, but at any rate I shall persevere.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd (Morecambe and Lonsdale)

On some occasions Back Benchers have the edge on Ministers, because sometimes Ministers are inhibited by having to defend a position or diplomatic nicety and are prevented from saying what they think. I shall speak in full and frank support of the order from an uncharacteristic position but one that I adopted on Second Reading of the parent Act.

The orders contain two main characteristics. First, the financial difficulties which they may impose upon the Iranian people will not be noticed by them. Secondly, the financial burdens which the orders might have imposed on our exporters will be little felt. From what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, the orders are also difficult to interpret.

It is interesting that both in conception and application the orders are thoroughly oriental in character. That is a humorous observation, but it is important to take it into account. We are not seeking to persuade ourselves that the detention of the American hostages is violently wrong. We are seeking to persuade the people who live in Iran that it is wrong. I am not saying that we shall have a great measure of success in imposing the sanctions, but it must be right to address our minds to the audience that we are trying to persuade.

During the Second Reading debate I said that the orders were oriental in character because at that stage it seemed that the orders were likely to harm British interests. I said that in the Middle East and in Iran in particular a large number of people were prepared to bite off their noses to spite their faces. However, we are not spiting our faces. The orders do not seem to hurt our exporters, but we are having our cake and eating it—another Middle East characteristic. We are none the worse for that.

Accusations will be made by friends across the Atlantic that the orders are not as effective as they should be, and that because they are ineffective they should not be imposed. It is neither wise nor feasible to imagine that we can bring down the Iranian Government by sanctions. It would not be wise to try to bring down the Iranian Government because we might find something even worse in their place. It would not be feasible, as everybody who has had experience of sanctions will agree. It is essential to recognise that we are seeking to make a stand for a friend in need in a way which evidence suggests will be understood by some elements in the Middle East.

In case hon. Members think that I am being too theoretical, I shall describe something that actually took place. I have just returned from Jordan. When President Sadat agreed the Camp David accords with the Israeli Government in America, the Jordanian Government decided that the position was too intolerable for them to bear, with the result that they broke off diplomatic relations with the Egyptian Government. Before that event, there were two flights a day from Amman to Cairo. There are now eight. The reason why there are eight flights a day between two countries which have no diplomatic relations is that there are 200,000 Egyptian citizens living and working happily and peaceably in Jordan. The fact is that in the Middle East there are people who find it necessary, in the interests of something that they believe in, to take a stand, to make a gesture and to make their position felt even when, to us Anglo-Saxons and other wiser people in the sophisticated West, it seems a waste of time.

We have these references and explanations from hon. Members, be it about sugar beet, turnips or selling washing machines and similar absurdities. I suggest that those references are irrelevant. They will certainly not be understood by the Iranians. It matters not a jot to the Iranian people whether there are some holes in these sanctions, or whether some washing machines or turnips or carrots will be exported to Iran. The important thing is that we have made our stand. What we are doing, in a highly oriental way, is saying " We don't like your behaviour and we are demonstrating it by a form of conduct which costs us nothing."

I take it that my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be replying to the debate. He has been awarded the citation of gallantry and other such epithets by hon. Members. I remind him, when he attempts to answer all the difficult questions that have been put to him tonight, of that wise and important Oriental proverb: It is a good thing to know the truth and to answer it; but it is often a better thing to know the truth and in answer to speak of palm trees.

12.42 am

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

A tribute should be paid to the House itself for the extent to which the orders are not as strong as they might be. There are those who suggest that this Chamber is not effective and that our work can be done better in various Committees. What happened on 19 May showed clearly how effective the Chamber can be. The extent to which the orders are weak and full of loopholes is a tribute to the Chamber as a parliamentary instrument and also to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

The orders clearly show that the Government, like the rest of us, do not have any faith in sanctions. Their heart is not in the job. In replying to one of his hon. Friends, the Minister said that he believed that the hostages would be helped as a result of the imposition of sanctions. I find it difficult to believe that he or any other member of the Government really believes that to be the case. What the House is being asked to approve is a futile and silly gesture, which is why the orders should not be approved.

I ask the obvious question: will those holding the hostages say " Look at the tremendous damage that will be done to us by the United Kingdom. Let us release the hostages as quickly as possible "? There are those in Iran, especially the more fanatical elements, who would welcome an effective sanctions policy against their country. They take the view that it would make Iran more self-reliant and less concerned with the West. Today, in the Evening Standard, the religious leader of Iran is quoted as telling Iranians at the conference being attended by a number of foreign observers that they should be prepared to let foreigners build a wall around Iran and imprison them and to use donkeys for transport in their current confrontation with the United States. There is not much evidence there that the most influential person in Iran is likely to be influenced by what is being done by sanctions, be it by the United Kingdom or by any other country in the EEC. We know that sanctions were never meant to be effective and that this is being done only to please the United States.

It is argued by some—the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, in effect, if I understood him—that it will not do any good, but we should vote for the orders to show our solidarity with the United States. If we want to show solidarity and if we want to show friendship to the United States, should we not be good friends and give good advice? If we do not believe this to be of any use—if it is futile, if there is hardly anyone in the House who believes that it will help the hostages—why vote for it? Why mislead the United States? If it will not have much effect on Iran, it is hardly likely to have much effect on the United States from the point of view of saying that Britain is developing a policy that is helping, because to a large extent, I suppose, the attitude of the United States will be that we are not being good, reliable allies. So in effect we are pleasing no one.

There has been one major political development since we debated the Bill a few weeks ago. I refer to the documents that have been released in Iran, which seem to show that the United States was making plans to seize power there, using the Iranian armed forces. As far as I know—I am willing to be corrected—there has been no denial of that by the United States' authorities. This means that the United States was willing to intervene in the internal affairs of Iran last year following the end of the Shah's rule, in the same way as it acted in 1953.

I am the last person to condone or justify the holding of the hostages. It is totally unlawful, and we all condemn it, but at the same time we have a duty to condemn the manner in which the United States has intervened, time and again, in the internal affairs of Iran. We know what happened in 1953. We know what happened afterwards. The documents that were released yesterday show that NATO, General Haig and another American general were directly involved in plots and plans to try to bring about a coup, following the end of the Shah's rule. If I condemn the holding of hostages. I certainly condemn what the United States was planning to do.

I have received a letter from an engineering firm in my constituency in which it expresses concern about the effect that sanctions could have on its business. I have written to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and sent a copy to the Secretary of State for Trade.

Hon. Members have rightly brought out some of the difficulties and snags arising from the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I am particularly concerned about two matters, which I shall mention quickly. The first is that there is no appeal system. That information is to be found at the end of page 2 of the document. There is an unfettered power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) said, to modify or revoke a licence granted under the order, with no right of appeal at all. The question of which contracts can be extended is very much open to question. It is ambiguous, and there does not seem to be the guidance that should be provided. I think that those two matters are sufficient to give rise to a great deal of concern.

It may be said that if these orders are weak, if they will not do too much damage, we should not bother to vote against them. I believe that we should refuse to approve the orders, because they serve no purpose whatsoever. They are a futile gesture. It is wrong to apply orders in which we do not believe, which will have no real effect, and which will not do anything for the respect for this House. Those who share the feeling of myself and my hon. Friends that the orders do not serve any purpose should go into the Lobby and vote against them accordingly.

12.50 am

Mr. Parkinson

It is true that the House has shown that the Government are in some difficulty, but I suggest that the House is also in a certain amount of difficulty. After the Naples meeting, a great deal of indignation was expressed because the House never expected the Bill to apply to existing contracts. Many hon. Members made impassioned statements on that day. Yet tonight the House says that it is an outrage, and that they are weak orders because they do not apply to existing contracts. The Bill is not retrospective. The Government have responded to the wishes of the House and removed the retrospective element.

The House—the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) put his finger on the point—is deploring the orders. Those who voted for the Bill—it had a substantial majority, and the Opposition voted for it—are saying that the orders are weak because they do not do the things that the House said it never expected them to do, and are not worth the time of the House in discussion. Yet those who said that are those same hon. Members who voted for the Bill. On Second Reading the Opposition Front Bench warned us that if we attempted to introduce orders that were any stronger than these they would resist that attempt fiercely.

The orders are difficult to defend, and I can see some of their weaknesses. It is because the House insisted that the orders should not be comprehensive. It would have been simple to have a clearcut, understandable order that terminated all existing contracts immediately and said that no further goods would go to Iran. That would have been clear, and easy to enforce, and the House would have understood it perfectly. The House said that it did not want that sort of order. It wanted existing contracts to continue.

During previous debates the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) made some excellent speeches, pointing out the importance of existing contracts being allowed to continue. The hon. Gentleman has criticised what he calls the vague wording of clause 2(2). One reason for that wording is that British Leyland does not have anything that could be called a written agreement. British Leyland has something that could be described as a continuing course of business. Therefore, we are trying to do exactly what the House demanded that the Government should do, namely, not disrupt existing business.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke convincingly on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill, and he made a strong point tonight. I accept his criticism. He has been consistent. But I do not think that the House can have it both ways. It cannot vote for a Bill, order the Government not to have any retrospective element in any of the orders, and then criticise the Government because they do just that.

The political initiatives that have been taken since we debated the Bill have failed. Various people have been to Iran, but there is no movement on that front. I remind the House that our American allies asked us to help. They proposed the way in which we could help. They suggested that we should impose sanctions. The House agreed, by its vote, that the Government should be given the extra powers needed, which they did not have under the 1939 Act, to enable them—if a decision was taken by the Council of Ministers—to comply with the United Nations sanctions resolution.

To meet the demands of the House, the retrospective element to which hon. Members objected has been removed. The order will prevent our exporters from obtaining the new business that they might otherwise have obtained. Many firms had begun to expect valuable new business from Iran. They will be sorry not to be able to sign contracts and to export the goods that would have arisen from those orders.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Parkison

No, there is not time. There will be another debate, when my hon. Friend can put his question.

A number of companies have already been in touch with my Department to explain their concern and feelings about the fact that they will lose business that they felt they might otherwise have obtained. I have no doubt that as the order takes effect hon. Gentlemen will be writing to us on behalf of their constituents—and I suspect that a number of those who made rather clever speeches tonight and were dismissive of the order will be among them—complaining that jobs are being affected because orders that were on the point of being concluded cannot be signed.

Mr. Marlow

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Parkinson

I will not give way. My hon. Friend can speak later.

Our trade with Iran is running at about 50 per cent. of its 1978 level. Those figures are in cash terms. In real terms, our trade is much lower. Our trade will, to a considerable extent, be pegged by the order at the current level of 50 per cent., in cash terms, of the 1978 level.

I have no doubt that there will be a price to pay and that hon Members will be contacting the Department on behalf of companies in their constituencies urging us to do things to help those companies because orders can no longer be signed. But this price must be paid if the United Kingdom is to play its part in the decision of the Community and of a number of other OECD countries to go ahead with sanctions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked me about problems that he was expecting

with sugar beet and carrots. I have news for him. Neither food nor know-how is affected by the order. Therefore, the carrot growers and the beet producers and those with know-how can sleep easy in their beds tonight.

A number of other questions were asked, to which I shall not have time to reply because we are just about to run out of time. But we shall have another debate and I shall take the opportunity in that debate to deal with any points that I have not dealt with in this debate—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 18.

Division No. 336]	AYES	[12.58 am
Alexander, Richard	Gorst, John	Nelson, Anthony
Ancram, Michael	Gow, Ian	Newton, Tony
Arnold, Tom	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Normanton, Tom
Aaplnwall, Jack	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Grist, Ian	Parkinson, Cecil
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Gummer, John Selwyn	Parrls, Matthew
Beith, A. J.	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Patten, John (Oxford)
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Penhaligon, David
Berry, Hon Anthony	Hawksley, Warren	Pollock, Alexander
Best, Keith	Heddle, John	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Henderson, Barry	Rathbone, Tim
Biften, Rt Hon John	Hill, James	Renton, Tim
Biggs-Davlson, John	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Blackburn, John	Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Braine, Sir Bernard	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Brinton, Tim	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Scott, Nicholas
Brittan, Leon	Hurd, Hon Douglas	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Skeet, T. H. H
Brown, Michael (Brlgg & Sc'thorpe)	Lamont, Norman	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Budgen, Nick	Lawrence, Ivan	Speller, Tony
Bulmer, Esmond	Lee, John	Squire, Robin
Butcher, John	Le Marchant, Spencer	Stanbrook, Ivor
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Steel, Rt Hon David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Stevens, Martin
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Stradling, Thomas, J.
Chapman, Sydney	Lyell, Nicholas	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Macfarlane, Neil	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclllte)	MacGregor, John	Thompson, Donald
Cope, John	MacKay, John (Argyll)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Cranborne, Viscount	Mates, Michael	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Viggers, Peter
Dover, Denshore	Mellor, David	Waddington, David
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Wakeham, John
Durant, Tony	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Miscampbell, Norman	Waller, Gary
Elliott, Sir William	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Watson, John
Falrgrleve, Russell	Moate, Roger	Wells, Bowen (Harl'rd & Stev'nage)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Morgan, Geraint	Wheeler, John
Farr, John	Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)	Winterton, Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)	Wolfson, Mark
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mudd, David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Forman, Nigel	Murphy, Christopher	Mr. Carol Mather and
Freud, Clement	Needham, Richard	Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Garel-Jones, Tristan
NOES
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Cryer, Bob	Huckfield, Les
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Dalyell, Tarn	Kilfedder, James A.
Canavan, Dennis	Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Crowther, J. S.	Evans, John (Newton)	Marlow, Tony
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	Soley, Clive	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)	Stoddart, David	Mr. David Winnick and
Skinner, Dennis	Welsh, Michael	Mr. Nigel Spearing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the Iran (Trading Sanctions) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29 May, be approved.