IRAN (TEMPORARY POWERS) BILL

HC Deb 13 May 1980 vol 984 cc1175-307

Again considered in Committee.

Mr. Rowlands

As I was saying in moving the amendments it seemed fundamental to our approach that we should not recognise the holding of the American hostages in Tehran as anything other than an issue of East-West relations or bilateral United States-Iran relations. It is a fundamental challenge to international law and the convention within that law. It is tragic that since the understanding and international consensus that was established in December at the United Nations Security Council we have lost some appreciation and understanding of what the issue is all about. That was an inevitable consequence of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the polarising, once again, of the issue in the Security Council after the invasion.

The Security Council voted unanimously to condemn the action of the Soviet Union. It did so on 4 December. It called upon the Government of Iran to release immediately the American prisoners, to provide them with protection and to allow them to leave the country. That was supported not only by the Western group but by the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic and Third world nations that are represented on the Security Council. We must try to return to that international consensus. It is important that we try to reestablish that relationship as we try to help to obtain the release of the hostages.

As I said, the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan intervened. When the Security Council debated the imposition of sanctions and the explicit economic sanctions resolution that was proposed at the Security Council in January, the Soviet Union used its veto. That is the reason for the Bill. If the Soviet Union had not used the veto, we could have implemented sanctions measures under United Nations legislation. That would have been mandatory in any event.

It is worth remembering which nation vetoed the principle of sanctions in January. It was the Soviet Union. It was supported by the German Democratic Republic. However, a host of other countries, including Jamaica, Niger, Tunisia and Norway, voted for the resolution. It might be said that that was not of very much use, as none of those countries has any meaningful economic relationship with Iran. I speak from my knowledge and experience as the Minister responsible for Caribbean affairs in the previous Labour Government. The Government of Jamaica have taken a strong Third world position on a host of international issues and have been profoundly critical of the West's position in the North-South dialogue and in a number of other international issues.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Third world countries of diverse natures stood up and were counted on a strong set of economic sanctions. It is worth trying to re-establish and reconstruct a degree of international consensus on the sad plight and profound issues surrounding the imprisonment of the American diplomats.

10.15 pm

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was critical of the United States. I am sure that Opposition Members understood the position in which the United States Government found themselves. After 160 days of patient diplomatic and political negotiations, it was understandable that they should try to apply additional pressures. I thought that my right hon. Friend made a forceful point. He sought to point out that it was a tactical error to go to a small group of Western Powers, Japan and one or two other countries.

I cannot believe that the State Department and the White House do things unwittingly. On second thoughts, I can. There are enough advisers around to give the State Department good advice. The effect of their action, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was to polarise the issue still further. As a result, the hostages have become a source of greater argument between East and West, which has brought into play the whole question of confidence in the Western Alliance. That is one of the saddest consequences of events since last December.

It is important to try to re-establish an international consensus on the fundamental issues that have been raised. That should be our major diplomatic and political priority. Before any sanctions orders are introduced, moves should be made to take the issue back to the Security Council. Again, I shall try to anticipate the Minister's case. He may argue that there is not much point in doing that, because the Soviet Union has a veto. He might argue that it would be a waste of time.

I shall give a few reasons why this is probably the best approach. A return to the Security Council would represent only one part of a host of political moves and developments. Foreign Office Ministers have to deal with these problems. If a Minister tries to extricate a citizen, or citizens, from a foreign prison, he will realise that it is politically unappealing to have to say that we must be patient, or that a certain avenue must first be explored. Indeed, the imprisonment may be official or unofficial. In my time, I have had to deal with both types of case. It is politically unappealing to have to say that one cannot say, as yet, what is happening and to give assurances that attempts are being made to make contact with the authorities.

I vividly recall that the Tyler family were caught by a group of the Tigrean liberation movement. We spent months endeavouring to make contact. We were successful. Of course, that had no political popular appeal at all. Often one has to bite one's tongue and persuade aggrieved relations and aggrieved Parliaments or Congresses that that is the only way forward. Sometimes it is the only way forward, along with, obviously, the bringing to bear of such pressure as one can bring to bear—diplomatic, political, or even economic in certain circumstances. It has no political appeal, but on many occasions it is the only way forward.

As my vote last night indicated, I do not oppose the principle of economic pressure or the use of possible sanctions in the context of the hostages. However, I believe that there should not be a headlong rush into sanctions. There should be a longish pause and further diplomatic moves. We are suggesting one rather important political move that could take place, namely, to return to the Security Council. We do so for three basic reasons.

The first reason, as the Minister of State acknowledged in his speech yesterday, is that, in a way, action by the Security Council is much more influential than the partial implementation of sanctions by a few nations. There is a genuinely strong case to be made that despite everything, despite the rebuffs that have already happened, we should try to reunite the international community, and particularly the Security Council, and get some international diplomatic and political moves going on a stronger and more forceful basis—perhaps to return to the Security Council not merely for an endorsement of the original economic sanctions that were vetoed by the Soviet Union but for a possible variety of measures. Again, I do not even dream of anticipating any drafting of such a resolution, which might promote further the concept of diplomatic and political initiative.

Although Kurt Waldheim, the Secretary-General, suffered a serious rebuff when he went to Tehran, at least he went there and at least there was then a hope that something would come out of it. All right; it fell apart then. But again, coming back to my personal experience, one experiences a number of disappointments. One has many such experiences in the business of trying to extricate citizens from various situations—in this case an extreme situation. Nevertheless, one must not give up trying to utilise this option.

Surely it would be a major prize for the United States and for all of us to re-engage the United Nations Secretary-General himself and others in the task of trying to resolve the issue of the hostages. That would be an important prize. The question posed in the amendment is whether, if we move into sanctions and act on individual orders at present, we damage that opportunity or make it less likely, so that the hope becomes dashed.

On that ground, we ask the Government to commit themselves through the amendment, and obviously in concert with their partners, to take this issue back to the Security Council to see whether it can utilise the international machinery available to resolve this sad problem of the hostages.

Secondly, the value of returning to the Security Council, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar said yesterday, is that it would help to reestablish the principle that this Iranian offence is of an international character and not of a bilateral United States-Iran character. It is sad that the fundamental issue involved in the retention of the hostages has been partially forgotten. Perhaps by going back to the Security Council we could reinforce the fundamental principle involved in the brutal imprisonment of the American diplomats.

The proposal could also form the basis of the opening of talks with the Soviet Union over the hostages. The Soviet Union has no vested interest in supporting the imprisonment. The Soviet Union or its satellites could find themselves in a similar situation. Part of its justification for the events in Afghanistan was that its citizens were being brutally murdered. The Soviet Union does not have a vested interest in fostering the retention of the diplomatic hostages.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the Soviet Union is not revelling a little in the humiliation of the United States? Is he certain that, although we know that none of the Western Powers would behave as badly, the Soviets may not be fairly confident that their own people, like the people in the Iranian embassy in London, would be safeguarded by the Western Powers?

Mr. Rowlands

I cannot answer that. I am not a member of the Politburo.

Last December there was a degree of unanimity over the hostages. The Soviet Union did not obstruct the resolution in the Security Council. The trouble began when Security Council agreement was sought for a host of powerful sanctions, which are not fully implemented in this legislation, even combined with the 1939 Act. Let us put the matter to the test and go back to the Security Council to see whether a group of nations can reconstruct the consensus, moving on from the December position. Sanctions orders now might make that more difficult. That is the basis of our amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I like the hon. Gentleman's proposal and arguments. I suspect that my hon. Friends will see much merit in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, is it not open to the Government in any event to go back to the Security Council, with our American friends, if they think it appropriate, and use all the machinery that the hon. Gentleman describes, if it looks as though it might help? With the hon. Gentleman's experience of the Foreign Office, does he agree that it may be a trifle inflexible to build into statute law the provision that the machinery may be used but that it should not be compelling as a matter of statute?

Mr. Rowlands

The hon. Gentleman's point is reasonable. Our reaction will depend on the Minister's reply. The amendment is a major vehicle to raise the vitally important issue of the way in which diplomatic and political pressure may be used. That is a long-standing basic principle of an amendment of this kind. It does not invalidate the nature of the amendment or the arguments used in favour of the amendment. Our approach, I believe, is potentially more hopeful. The only hopeful sign in an otherwise gloomy situation is the potential meeting between Secretary of State Muskie and Mr. Gromyko within a week or so.

10.30 pm

We hope that Ministers at meetings this weekend will take no decisions that make even less likely any chance of progress. One hopes that the possible meeting between the United States Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union will not become too much of a set piece.

The deadline of 17 May is nonsense. That is not to say that there is no case for deadlines, although my experience is that they cause more problems than they solve. When deadlines are reached or passed, one is forced to take action, even though it may be counter-productive, or one can pretend that the deadline was not meant. In this case, there is a reasonable reason, not an excuse, for not accepting 17 May as an absolute deadline. The attempt to solve the hostages problem by a military rescue operation was an enormous event. It has had a profound effect in Iran and its reverberations are felt throughout the Middle East. The deadline of 17 May, formulated before that event, has less relevance.

I hope that Ministers, when they meet at the weekend, will not feel themselves bound to leap and jump around in an excessive manner that could be counter-productive to the processes that the Opposition believe should happen.

The House is owed an explanation of or statement about the attitude and approach that Ministers will adopt towards this weekend's meeting. The defence by the Minister for Trade, on the last set of amendments, was that he could not allay our suspicions completely, or answer specific points, because decisions on sanctions would be thrashed out at this weekend's meeting. That is a reasonable point in some respects, but the Committee is entitled, especially when we are asked to pass a Bill giving the Government powers to implement decisions that may be made this weekend, to know the Government's attitude towards the meeting.

It is not a question whether they might have to compromise with the eight Governments or work out a collective agreement. We have a right, in the context of this amendment and the amendment that we are moving in relation to our EEC partners, to know the Government's pitch. Will they suggest the implementation of sanctions X, Y and Z immediately, or will they propose a longer time scale to enable diplomatic moves to take place?

We have been bounced by the Bill. Ministers have argued that we must pass it because commitments were made on, 22 April. Before the Government make any more commitments about the implementation of sanctions, they must tell the House what they intend to say to the other eight Governments. Of course, they must try to work out a collective agreement and must be flexible.

Mr. Dalyell

This is an important point. Are we being asked to buy a proverbial pig in a poke? We understand that there must be flexibility and room for compromise, but surely the Minister of State should be able to outline the Government's starting position. If he says that we cannot discuss such matters, it will be a negation of open government, and I am not sure that on this subject the Committee should put up with secrecy.

Mr. Rowlands

Negotiations and diplomacy sometimes require secrecy, but when the Government bring before the House a Bill that they describe as an enabling measure, which may subsequently lead to orders being laid, depending on what happens this weekend, we are entitled to ask what will be the Government's position and pitch at that meeting. We appreciate that they have to seek a collective agreement, but we demand a statement on the line that the Government will take with the other eight member States.

There should be major political and diplomatic moves, of which a major part should be a return to the Security Council in an attempt to reconstruct an international consensus based on the fundamental issue at stake—the challenge to the nature of international relationships, conventions and laws represented by the imprisonment of the American hostages.

I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but I ought also to refer to amendment No. 36, which deals with a separate matter. The Minister of State said, on Second Reading yesterday: We do not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors. We do not intend to take measures that have the effect of delivering trade into the hands of our competitors."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 916.] Basically, that quotation was in the context of our European competitors plus Japan and the United States. The purpose of amendment No. 36 is to ensure that the House will at least know when orders are laid whether we are lagging or jumping ahead.

The Minister of State explained that the Bill arises from decisions taken at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 22 April. He said that it had to be rushed through to meet those commitments. But the House has a right to know whether other EEC Governments have, or will have by 17 May, legislated or decreed powers identical to those sought by the Government. Will the Minister of State spell out what the other eight Governments have done?

With the help of the Library I have carried out my own research, and I have a list of the stages that each European State has reached. But the Bill states that we must be ready by 17 May to implement the equivalent of the sanctions laid down in the Security Council resolution of 17 January. Amendment No. 36 states that we must know, and the House must know, that all our partners in the EEC will do likewise.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend refers to all our partners. It is a question of the Japanese. During my remarks on amendment No. 2, the Minister of State questioned the fact that around 80 per cent. of Japanese trade with Iran was conducted by six companies and that those six companies only were subject to the embargo. Since then I have provided the Minister with the statement in The Times of 25 April, indicating that that was so. May I ask, through my hon. Friend, who has experience in the Foreign Office, whether this is the case?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) pointed out, when the Japanese make an agreement they stick to it. Those hon. Members who had the good fortune to participate in an IPU visit to Japan in 1969 know that when the Japanese say something they stick to it. But, even in those circumstances, why are our small firms apparently to be subject to the embargo when small Japanese firms will not be subject to it? Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not a Foreign Office Minister at present, but it is incumbent on Ministers at the Foreign Office to say "Yes" or "No" to this point.

Mr. Rowlands

I am sure that the Minister of State will take note of my hon. Friend's point. It arises from a previous debate, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter in relation to Japan.

In the case of these amendments, which are confined to members of the EEC, we must be told how far each of the Governments of the Nine have gone in implementing, either by decree or by legislation, the commitments made at the meeting of Foreign Ministers on 22 April.

Rightly and fundamentally, it is both accepted and unchallenged that each nation within the Nine has the right to decide what sanctions to implement and how to implement them. Although the Council of Ministers has responsibility for these decisions, they are rightly the decisions of each national Government and Parliament. Because there will not be a Council of Ministers report on the issue, it is necessary to establish clearly what measures each of the other nation States within the Nine have taken to implement the United Nations Security Council resolution, as well as the agreement of 22 April.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) to give a running commentary throughout the proceedings?

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

It is not in order for any hon. Member to speak unless he has been called by the Chair. There is a certain amount of noise at the end of the Chamber which, I hope, will be brought to an end.

Mr. Rowlands

I make that point because we want a statement setting out how far European Governments have proceeded in implementing the agreement of 22 April. This amendment is not only of historic or current concern; it is also futuristic. It intends to ensure that the House is fully informed of what actions will be taken in the future by other European Governments if and when we implement any orders under the Bill on any aspect of sanctions.

Some decisions may well be made this weekend. We shall want to know the position that the Government intend to take, and we also wish to ensure that the House and Parliament are informed in detail of actions that other Governments will take in the future to implement the sanctions. That was the very point made by the Minister of State yesterday, when he said: We are trying to iron out these differences in order to reach, in practice, a similar result. It is not enough to concert in advance on what measures should be taken. We have to concert throughout on how they are applied."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 917.] The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Parliament is informed at that stage how sanctions that might be imposed by order under the Bill are being implemented by other members of the EEC.

10.45

Mr. Russell Johnston

Supposing the amendment were accepted by the Government, how would the hon. Gentleman like the Government to provide the information? As much of it would be in legal form, to provide it accurately would be a complicated exercise.

Mr. Rowlands

I do not think that it is complicated. Amendment No. 36 provides that No Order in Council under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State has previously certified to each House of Parliament that each of the states listed…has adopted legislation to the like effect". He can do that by making a statement or laying a paper. There are many ways in which the Government can inform the House either of their own position or the position of others. I see no practical or technical problem there.

For the reason given by the Minister of State yesterday, it is important that we should know what the Governments of the other eight members of the EEC are doing about the existing legislative position and about implementing any sanctions that may be agreed at the meeting next weekend or any subsequent meeting. The Minister said yesterday that the Government did not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors. It may be the decision of the House that we should lag behind or jump ahead. We are saying that the House has every right to know exactly what other members of the EEC are doing about implementing sanctions against Iran.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I am in harmony with the spirit of the three amendments. However, it is unnecessary to legislate them into the statute. I suggest that the Committee should listen carefully to the assurances that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) has sought from my hon. Friend the Minister of State. He asked that every conceivable diplomatic method should be tried to resolve the problem before entering into economic sanctions, and I am sure that is right.

Last evening, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, in answer to a specific question from me, gave an assurance that every possible diplomatic avenue would be exhausted before orders were brought forward to establish economic pressure. I believe that to be the position. If my hon. Friend is able to reiterate that assurance tonight, it would be unwise to tie the hands of the Government by importing into the Bill specific legislative requirements that could make for the very inflexibility that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and his right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) would not wish to impose upon our diplomacy.

As for the European position, again I believe that we were given an assurance by the Minister for Trade last evening. It is perhaps right that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office should tell us how he intends to advise the Committee that we have been able to reach harmony with our European friends and that we are confident that they are acting in the same way, always bearing in mind that their legislative and administrative processes are different from our own.

The key factor is that the Foreign Secretary put his name and the name of this country to an agreement that was reached. It is important that when he goes to the meeting this weekend he should be able to show that the House of Commons has delivered on the promise that he made. That is important for American reasons and I believe that it is also important for Iranian reasons.

If, as I trust, my hon. Friend is able to say that diplomatic efforts are being made by the Americans at official and unofficial levels, by this country through the multilateral agencies of the United Nations and elsewhere, and through our own bilateral and unofficial approaches, I believe that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, in moving the amendment, will have done a service to the Committee. But in those circumstances I think that he would be unwise to press his amendment to a Division.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

In many ways amendment No. 35 is at the crux of the controversy over the Bill. The main question is what can be done to secure the release of the hostages. There is no difference of opinion about that. Whatever differences we may have about the Iranian situation, past and present, there is no difference of opinion in the House about the hostages. We are unanimous in our desire to secure their release. We are agreed that they should never have been taken hostage in the first place and we certainly wish to see their earliest release.

It is much more a question of how we can achieve that end and help our ally the United States rather than harm ourselves. I see no purpose in harming our trade and the job security of British people in what is, after all, accepted to be a futile gesture.

My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) was right, in moving the amendment, to place so much emphasis on diplomacy. It must be recognised that the hostages are not being held by the Iranian authorities. That is no excuse, and I do not want that to be misunderstood. There is no excuse for the manner in which the Iranian Government are defending the taking of the hostages, but if the hostages were in the custody of Iranian officials the situation would be somewhat better. It is precisely because they are not in such custody and they are being held by people described as students that the situation is fraught with difficulties.

The Government, as I understand it, feel that they have an obligation—in line with the other EEC Governments—to do what they can to help the United States. The essence of the Government's argument today—as it was before the Bill came before the House—is that they are not certain whether sanctions will do any good. Nevertheless, they feel that they have an obligation, since the United States and the Alliance are in difficulties. For all those reasons, the Government argue that it is necessary to act with our EEC partners in imposing sanctions on Iran.

Surely, the best way to help the United States Government is to be perfectly frank and honest with them. If Ministers themselves do not believe that the Bill before us will do any good, why should we deceive the United States? We are not a good friend to our American allies if we deceive them. As has been said on a number of occasions, we should, perhaps, help our American allies in the same way as they helped us in the past by not making futile and unnecessary gestures.

Amendment No. 35 states that no Order in Council shall be made until the Security Council of the United Nations has, after the passing of the Act, discussed the detention of the hostages. It has been said that we can have the Bill and diplomacy at the same time. If sanctions will undermine jobs and trade in the United Kingdom but not secure the release of the hostages, the Bill has no purpose. If the hostages cannot be released through sanctions, we must fall back on amendment No. 35, which involves diplomacy and a further debate in the Security Council.

I agree that the fact that the Soviet Union vetoed the resolution on a previous occasion does not necessarily mean that it will do so again. Because of the hostility that the Soviet Union met, rightly, as a result of its hostility in Afghanistan, it took a different attitude. When the hostages issue was raised in the Security Council a short time previously, the Soviet Union was willing for the resolution to be adopted.

The diplomatic efforts behind the scenes are as important as a debate in the Security Council. Leading personalities in the Muslim world are not happy about what has happened in Iran. They do not believe that it is a part of the Islamic revolution or a reflection of the Islamic religion. They feel that the situation is fraught with difficulties for the Middle East. They know that it is possible—we hope that it will not occur—that the United States will resort to military action. That is why such people would like a solution to be found.

I hope that I am not being controversial when I say that it would do no harm for the United States Government to admit that they have done a great deal of wrong in Iran in the last 30 years. That does not mean that they should give in to terrorism or humiliate themselves. The United States did a great deal of harm in Iran. I see no reason why they should not admit it.

Mr. Dalyell

Some degree of admission is a precondition of success. Many of the decision-makers in Iran have lost members of their families because of the Shah's secret police, who were helped at various stages by agents who were acting on behalf of the United States Government, or not, as one would prefer to believe, but were at least American citizens. Human nature being what it is, is it not a precondition that there should be a statement of some kind before the hostages are released?

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is outside the scope of the amendments. The amendments cover the question whether we should refer the matter to the United Nations before sanctions are imposed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that rather than with what has happened in Iran in the last 20 years.

Mr. Winnick

With respect, Mr. Crawshaw, the taking of the hostages was justified on the basis of what has happened in Iran in the last 25 or 30 years. It is said that the Americans have played such a dubious, bad or, as some would say, evil role in Iran—

The Second Deputy Chairman

I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is not relevant to the question whether the issue is referred to the United Nations.

11 pm

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. With respect, history did not begin the day that the hostages were taken. That is part of the problem with the attitude of the West—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. If the hon. Member had tabled an amendment to discuss that point, he would have been in order. There are not amendments on the Order Paper to discuss events in Iran over the past 30 years. The amendment relates to the question whether we should refer the matter to the United Nations before the sanctions are implemented.

Mr. Winnick

Will it be in order to make a point about what should be stated at the United Nations if the matter is referred to it?

The Second Deputy Chairman

That would not be in order. We could debate all night the sort of things that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but they would not be relevant to the amendment before us.

Mr. Winnick

I accept your point, Mr. Crawshaw. I have established what I wished to say about what should be done about admitting the errors of the past.

I turn to amendment No. 36, which refers to informing the House about provisions that have been made by other EEC countries that apply sanctions. It is an important matter. I submitted an amendment, which was not selected. It is important and relevant, because many constituents are concerned that we could lose trade and jobs could be undermined if Britain applies sanctions. Other European countries might not do the same and might not lose the trade and the jobs that we could lose. I hope that Conservative Members recognise the significance of the amendment. If sanctions are to be applied, it is important to ensure that they are applied equally by the other members of the EEC.

We know of the evasions and the sanctions-busting that took place in Rhodesia. The anxieties of our constituents should be fully understood. For those reasons, I think that amendment No. 36 is reasonable. I see no reason why we should not be kept informed about the progress made by other European countries. We must ensure that if we take action—to which I am opposed—that could be harmful to Britain, the same sanctions are applied by other countries. This is a reasonable amendment, and I see no reason why the Government should not accept it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Grantham)

Despite the eloquence of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and the observations made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Win-nick), I remain unimpressed by the amendments. I oppose them on the ground that if they were accepted they would frustrate the main purpose of the Bill.

Most hon. Members who supported the Bill last night were conscious of the difficulties associated with the imposition of sanctions. I am the first to accept that the imposition of sanctions is likely to weaken the position of the moderates in Iran and thus delay the early release of the hostages. At the same time, we must put other considerations into the balance. As a number of hon. Members said last night, the Western allies must try to put forward a united front. I am quite convinced that it is in the interests of Europe to try to maintain the best possible relations with the Government and the people of the United States of America.

Judged against those criteria and purposes, the amendments are thoroughly objectionable. They link the fulfilment of our positive objectives with the actions of others over whom we can have no possible control. Nothing that we do in this place will be effective if amendment No. 35 is carried, unless the matter is discussed, as a precondition, in the Security Council. I take the view that that is complete nonsense for a variety of reasons, the most notable of which is that we can do nothing to ensure an early debate of this matter in the Security Council.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil made a number of points in that context. He suggested that the United Nations had a constructive role to play in this area. I wish that he were right, but I think that he is probably wrong. We can judge that only by past experience. For example, we know that on 4 December last year a resolution was passed that has in no way been complied with. We know that in March this year the Secretary-General went to Iran, attempted to negotiate a release of the hostages, and failed entirely. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Security Council can do better in the future than it has done in the past.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil made a further point with which I entirely disagree. He suggested that the Soviet Union has an interest in resolving the position of the hostages as speedily as possible. I think that he is wrong, for the reason that the Soviet Union inevitably profits from a state of discord in Iran, because if the discord goes on long enough a regime may emerge that is more favourable to Soviet interests than the present regime. I think that the presence of the hostages in Tehran and elsewhere in Persia makes that discord likely to continue. Therefore, the presence of the hostages themselves fosters the policies and the ambitions of the Soviet Union.

Mr. Dalyell

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, and I have listened to his legal arguments with great care. Surely one of the things about Russian policy is that above everything else it does not want disorder on its borders. The hon. Member may think that the Russians were very wrong to go into Afghanistan. Some of us may think that the reason why Russia was sucked into Afghanistan was precisely that kind of disorder. When there is a minority of 40 million Muslims in the Soviet Union, with the prospect that by 1985 one-quarter of the Soviet Army will be Muslim, possibly a rather different scenario is that the Russians do not want that kind of militant irredentist Islam on its borders. But, as I said, I am following the hon. Member's speech with great interest.

Mr. Hogg

I accept the hon. Gentleman's interesting point, but it really fortifies the conclusion to which I was pointing. It is perfectly true that the Soviet Union does not want discord on its frontiers. What it wants is a favourable regime. I am quite certain that the Soviet Union hopes that a favourable regime will emerge from the present state of chaos in Iran.

The other point with which I should like to deal briefly arises from amendment No. 36. It is obviously desirable that we should discuss the imposition of sanctions with our EEC colleagues, but surely it must be wrong to link the implementation of our action to the policies of the slowest of our allies. Indeed, if one looks at the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and asks what would happen if all other EEC countries adopted a similar approach, one finds the rather extraordinary position that no action would be taken at all, because no one would choose to be first.

The truth is that the United Kingdom will look remarkably foolish if its Government, having entered into certain commitments, and its Parliament, having passed certain policies, are seen to stand by and delay the implementation of those commitments and policies and make them dependent upon the wishes and policies of others whose perception of world events may be very different from our own. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment. The House of Commons should not be afraid to be first, if that is necessary.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

I shall restrict my remarks to amendment No. 36. It is as well that the Committee should envisage the terms that were used in commending the Bill yesterday, which have already been quoted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). The Minister said: It is not enough to concert in advance on what measures should be taken. We have to concert throughout on how they are to be applied. The object of the amendment, whatever may be the detailed effect of its drafting, and the notion behind it are clearly to write that undertaking and objective upon the face of the Bill. It cannot be argued, as the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has argued, that we should go ahead of the other States and be prepared to take action that will not be followed or imitated by the other States of the EEC. That is not the Government's policy. That is not the ground on which the Government are seeking these powers. They are seeking the powers upon the undertaking and understanding that they will be exercised at each stage precisely pari passu with corresponding steps taken by all the other member States of the EEC.

That may be right or it may be wrong. It may be more gallant, it may be more dashing, not to behave in that fashion, but that is undoubtedly the Government's policy. It was reaffirmed by words quoted by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, namely, that We do not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 916–17.] In that context he was talking about or including the other member States of the EEC. The amendment is not in any way departing from the intentions of the Government or from the basis on which the Government have asked the House of Commons to enact the Bill. That basis is that whatever is to be the implementation, at each stage it will be simultaneous with and identical with steps being taken by the other member States.

Clearly, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that that is so by requiring that the making of the implementing orders shall be dependent upon those circumstances and conditions being fulfilled in the other member States.

Mr. Rowlands

I do not think that what I said corresponds with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of my remarks or with the nature of the amendment. The amendment is neutral. It states that the House of Commons should know what other States are doing.

Mr. Powell

I should not be so bold as to enter into debate with the hon. Gentleman, the proposer, on what the amendment means. He should be, prima facie, the authority upon the subject. The Committee can read the amendment and judge for itself. It states: No Order in Council under this section shall be made". That is mandatory. That means that unless the condition that follows is fulfilled, an order implementing sanctions cannot be made. What is the condition? It is that the Secretary of State has previously certified…that each of the states…has adopted legislation to the like effect or has made provision to the like effect. I am not quite sure of the sense in which the hon. Gentleman is using the word "neutral". Neutral or otherwise, the condition of these steps being taken "to the like effect" in all the other States is being imposed upon the making of the sanctions orders. In defence of the hon. Member's amendment, I should add that that would be entirely logical if we were trying to introduce provisions to implement the Government's policy, stated yesterday by the Minister.

The only possible objection to the amendment's object is that it is not necessary or desirable for the undertaking—valid and binding as it is—to be made part of the Bill. I would be prepared to accept that objection if it were not for another part of the Bill. I refer to a subsequent subsection that enables a sanctions order to be effective for 28 days before the House is given an opportunity to pass judgment on it.

11.15 pm

Perhaps the Government intend to accept the amendments. They would alter the force of subsection (6). They may say that they have thought better of the provision and that they will lay a draft order. They may say that the draft order will become effective when it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The case for this amendment would then be considerably weakened. Since these two matters are closely interwoven, there is no reason why the Minister should not indicate that it is the Government's intention to modify their views on subsection (6).

Unless the reverse is stated, I shall proceed on the assumption that the Government will stand by the clause. In that case, an order may be made on the Government's understanding that similar orders and steps will be taken by all other member States. That order could be made, and it would come into effect immediately, before any parliamentary proceedings.

It is possible that the Government are under an innocent misapprehension. It has been known for misunderstandings to arise about the intentions of member States of the EEC. It may turn out, for example, that Luxembourg—horror of horrors—has taken no powers corresponding to those in the order. In those circumstances, the Government's policy would have been violated. The terms on which the Government had asked for the powers would have been innocently and unintentionally broken.

Let me follow this supposition through. Let me have my scenario, Mr. Crawshaw, for another moment or two. Let us suppose that on the twenty-seventh day we succeed in persuading the business managers to provide time for debate on the order. What will the Government say? What would any human Government say in those circumstances? Will they say that a debate is unnecessary, because they understand that Luxembourg will not take these measures? Will they say that they will therefore withdraw the order? Not a bit of it. Measures affecting the citizens of this country, interrupting trade and interfering with employment, will have been in force for 27 days, or a month. Will the Government then withdraw the order, on the ground that the Nine are not, after all, moving step by step?

The Government should protect themselves against being placed in so painful a moral dilemma. They would have an order that was contrary to their own understanding, intention and policy. However, when they discovered their mistake, they would be hard put to it to revoke it.

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

Mr. Powell

I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will allow me a few more moments before his inevitable interruption takes place. Perhaps "inevitable" is too strong a word, but the force of precedent is growing so great that it verges, at any rate, upon inevitability and upon the force and compulsion of an actual law of nature. Perhaps the hon. Member will grant me a few more moments.

Rather than the Government putting themselves in that predicament, how much preferable it would be to do the natural thing in order to implement their policy, namely, to make the effectiveness of the orders conditional upon adequate and public assurance, in documentary form, that all the other States will do the same thing at the same time.

There is no difficulty in producing such a document. There is no difficulty in such a certification. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) appeared to find this mysterious. I can well envisage quite a simple Command Paper, laid before Parliament, which would set out, as many White Papers have done before, the known intention of all the member States that on such-and-such a date they would implement such-and-such measures.

There would be no difficulty about that. If there were any dubiety, if there had been a misunderstanding about the Grand Duchy's intentions, in the drawing up of that certificate and certainly, at latest, on the publication of that certificate, this error would become manifest. In a flurry of diplomatic activity, it would have to be corrected and the statement would be withdrawn and, quite properly and in accordance with the Government's policy, it would be impossible then to proceed contrary to their policy with the implementation of those sanctions.

I am far from suggesting that the amendment as it stands on the Amendment Paper, elucidated, as I trust it has been, by the exchanges between the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and myself, fully and precisely, and with ideal mechanism, achieves that purpose, but when we vote on an amendment at this stage of a Bill we are not voting upon the verbal tenor of the amendment; we are voting upon the purpose. The purpose of this amendment is to achieve the purpose of the Government and to ensure that there can be no embarrassing misunderstanding at any stage and that there cannot be any question of the Government being accused—falsely, of course, but sincerely—of having reneged upon their undertaking.

I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister of State will not take refuge behind an argument that the mechanism could be improved. By all means let him improve the mechanism, but let him, at any rate, accept that what he has stated himself as the basis upon which the Bill is brought forward is achieved by the purpose that lies behind the amendment. He would not be fair to himself or to the Government if he did less.

Mr. Stanley Newens (Harlow)

I am in favour of the amendments because they provide for steps to be taken, through the United Nations, to secure the release of the hostages before this country embarks upon what I would regard as a thoroughly unwise course of action.

There is no question but that the taking of the hostages is totally deplorable. I believe that every right hon. and hon. Member considers that our objective should be to secure the release of the hostages in any way that we can as soon as possible. But we need to consider very carefully whether the implementation of sanctions forthwith will secure this objective.

I think that it is conceded that the implementation of sanctions will be limited to a handful of countries. Therefore, there is little hope that they will impose an economic stranglehold on the Iranian economy. As far as I am aware, no hon. Member has argued that the Iranian economy will collapse as a result of any action that is taken by way of sanctions.

Many speakers have conceded that what we are doing in resorting to sanctions is making a gesture. We have to consider the effect of a gesture of this character. Will it be seen by many countries as a condemnation of the action taken by the Iranians? On the contrary, it will be viewed as condemnation by countries which, for a considerable time, have been regarded as dyed-in-the-wool opponents of the present Iranian regime. It will be seen as condemnation by countries that waged an international campaign against the Government of Dr. Mossadeq, supported a CIA plot to overthrow him and back the Shah—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We are discussing specific amendments. I am sure that the hon. Member will come to them. I hope that he will cut out the past few years and get to the present time.

Mr. Newens

What I am endeavouring to say—I believe that it is true, because I have taken an interest in Iranian events for a number of years—is that support of sanctions will be seen in the way that I have described: as support by countries and people who throughout the years have been—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We had this debate yesterday. We are now discussing whether we should go to the United Nations before we take action.

Mr. Newens

I believe that we are also discussing whether or not we should implement sanctions before going to the United Nations. I am trying to point out what I believe will be the effect of implementing sanctions before we go to the United Nations. It will produce a small group of countries that are in condemnation of the Iranian regime—countries that are recognised by many people, rightly or wrongly, as having been opponents of all attempts to liberalise that regime. I believe that in these circumstances—

Mr. Russell Johnston

It may be worth making the point that it was in France—one of the countries about which we are talking—that the Ayatollah obtained refuge.

Mr. Newens

It is true that France gave the Ayatollah refuge, but the majority of countries concerned were regarded in a very different light. There is another amendment that deals with the attitude of other EEC members, including France. One of the objectives of the amendments is to be absolutely sure that we do not embark on a course of action that for some reason not apparent at the moment other countries do not follow.

I believe that more effect could be achieved in bringing about the release of the hostages if the demand made for their release and any action taken in support of it were seen not to be limited to countries that may be depicted as unrepentant supporters of the Shah. Therefore, I believe that it is tremendously important that we should try to discuss the matter further in the United Nations in order to give other countries the opportunity to express their views about the holding of the hostages.

11.30 pm

The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) conceded that the imposition of sanctions would weaken the position of those in Iran who want the hostages to be released and, therefore, strengthen the hand of the more intransigent opponents of their release.

If we are primarily concerned with securing the release of the hostages, I cannot see how the action proposed, if the Bill goes ahead unamended, remains the will of the Committee. We must all hope that the regime in Iran will become more concerned about human rights and will realise, in due course, that it is utterly indefensible to continue to detain these American citizens. Our actions should be calculated to bring about this end and encourage it. For that reason, I collected recently the signatures of 50 hon. Members, who were opponents of the Shah's regime over many years, on a petition asking Mr. Bani-Sadr to call for human rights for all Iranians to be recognised and for the hostages to be released.

We would be utterly mistaken to embark on sanctions before we explored every conceivable avenue by which we might make it possible for the more progressive and moderate elements in Iran to come to the forefront. If we go ahead with sanctions, we shall be shutting the door on that possibility. To some extent the Government have recognised this, as did the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). Therefore, I see no reason why amendment No. 35 should not be made. It would have the advantage of making our position clear to the rest of the EEC countries.

I believe that it is very important that we should not, in a blind dash to show our loyalty to the United States, encourage that country in any further mistaken courses of action. Therefore, I hope that when we vote on this amendment the Committee will see the wisdom of accepting it.

Mr. Russell Johnston

I wish to be fairly brief, as most of the points have been covered effectively. I wish to place on record the fact that I strongly support the approach of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) in both amendments that are before the Committee.

I agree that the deadline of 17 May should not be regarded as inviolable. We should look at amendment No. 35 in the context of the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). Clearly, he did not envisage any open-ended succession of diplomatic activity without anything else, but he indicated that in all the circumstances it represented a reasonable approach to refer the matter to the Security Council.

I do not think that it should be beyond the wit of the United Kingdom to do this in concert with others. That is quite possible. Equally, having passed the legislation, a reasonable breathing space should be allowed in which we should tell the Iranian authorities that we intend to proceed with economic pressures. We have already passed through our Parliaments the appropriate legislation, so we should ask the Iranians to think about the matter once more. That surely, is a reasonable approach.

I very much agree with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil that a further attempt should be made to recreate the international basis of abhorrence that at the beginning was a characteristic of the instinctive reaction of the world community but which, unfortunately, seems to have slid somewhat.

What we are engaged upon is not in any way an attack on Iran or on Islam. It is an attack on a form of behaviour that, if permitted to continue, could have the gravest repercussions on all international diplomatic exchanges.

Mr. Dalyell

If there is an attack in this form, is it likely to change that behaviour for the better?

Mr. Johnston

That question would take almost as long to answer as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) took to make his preliminary remarks earlier today. It is a complicated, philosophical question to ask where the division comes between diplomacy and a little pressure. I am afraid that I cannot answer that question directly. Nevertheless, I think that the time has come to move in the direction of stronger pressure on Iran. That is why I support this legislation.

I regard as essentially reasonable the proposals in amendment No. 36, related to amendment No. 39 and the other members of the Community. All the arguments have been set out with great clarity and with a certain amount of entertainment by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It seems unnecessary for me to add to anything that he said.

Mr. McNamara

I wish to support amendments Nos. 35 and 36, which in many ways go to the nub of the problem and are best able to get the Government out of their present fix. These provisions will go a long way to resurrect the position of the West in the world community.

If we examine the history of the past six months, whether we look at Afghanistan or Iran, we find that we have been able, despite Russian vetoes, to carry with us the majority of the world, including the Third world, in our arguments about the invasion of Afghanistan and the treatment of the hostages in Tehran. That has been an enormous advantage for everybody in the world. In view of the isolation in which the West has been placed in the past, in terms of the Third world, it gained for us for the first time tremendous advantages, in that things were going our way.

Since Christmas there has been a polarisation over Afghanistan. There has been a weakening of the resolve of the Third world, partly tied up with events associated with Tehran and, in regard to the Tehran hostages, related to the actions of the United States Government—a Government who to some extent have been concerned with internal politics and pressures, which we all understand, but whose judgment has been affected.

As a result of that judgment being affected, we have seen the reappearance of the polarisation that resulted in the speech that we heard yesterday by the Minister of State. In that he spoke of the Alliance being at risk and of the need to come to the aid of the United States.

I believe that the best weapon that we can use to give help to the United States is not in the form of a concerted, Western-oriented reaction but, as the friends of the United States, in being seen to work in the whole community of nations through the United Nations. That is the best way. My hon. Friends have been right to urge that we take further steps. I am a little concerned that we should tackle things in this way, because, when the next Islamic conference is held, the United States will be arraigned by the Islamic countries for its abortive attempt to rescue the Tehran hostages in a way that can be paralleled only by the way in which Russia was arraigned for its action over Afghanistan.

We know that there is no positive parallel between those events. We know that the intentions of the Americans were honourable. We also know that, because of the way in which the Americans set about matters, using Arab territory and invading—as many see it—the territorial integrity of an Islamic State, they offended, absolutely and directly, the feelings of the Islamic countries. It is essential that the position should be restored to where it was when the resolutions were first going through the United Nations. We must ensure that America is not arraigned by the Islamic countries and that we, in turn, as a result of this legislation, are not arraigned. We must seek to get the whole of the community of nations working on our behalf.

Mr. Dalyell

As the Chairman of one of the Sub-Committees of the Foreign Affairs Committee of this House, my hon. Friend has first-hand knowledge of the reactions of the Arab States. Can he confirm a matter on which there has been some dispute, factually, earlier in the debate and in relation to this amendment? Is it or is it not true that the Arab States he has visited are against a policy of sanctions, albeit that they do not like the taking of hostages?

Mr. McNamara

The answer to that, briefly, is "Yes." If I were to expand on that further, I am sure that I would be called to order.

We must go forward in the way that my hon. Friends have said, to try to prevent that degree of isolationism affecting both America and the West, ruining our relationships with many of the Islamic countries. If we look at the problems of the Gulf and the territories associated with Iran, we see that none will accept any of the principles contained in the legislation. If we can take them with us, through the United Nations, if we can maintain a positive approach in that way, the problems with which we shall be faced in terms of the arms race and of the vulnerability of the West will, to a degree, be diminished.

11.45 pm

In looking at the proposals and principles within the Bill, we have to be careful to avoid a worsening of our relations not only with Iran but with the Gulf States. The answer is to adopt the approach of my hon. Friend and to work through the United Nations.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) covered perfectly the points contained in amendment No. 36. We have not yet heard a statement from the Government about legislation being introduced elsewhere. There are stories that two countries—Italy and France—will have difficulty introducing the necessary legislation. Does this mean that such proposals are contrary to the spirit of their legislation? Is it difficult in political terms? Do they choose to make it difficult in order, perhaps, to reap some financial benefit if the legislation is passed in Britain?

The Government should explain what our Community partners are doing. Will the legislation be in operation on 17 May? Is the Foreign Secretary likely to be the only Minister arriving at the conference girded with these powers? Has the necessary legislation been introduced into the different Assemblies in Europe? If that is the case, although I dislike the policy, there will at least be a certain consistency in the Government's action.

Mr. Dalyell

There should be a statement by the Government on French contract law. It is the understanding of some hon. Members that, unless French contract law is altered, the sanctions that are requested cannot be imposed. The Government must investigate the matter. One has only to recall what happened in the 1960s over Franco-Arab and Franco-Israeli relations. Equally, any idea that the Italians will impose this type of law is very remote. As a member of the European Parliament, I had the experience of going to Rome and holding long interviews, as a member of the Budget Committee, with the Italian auditors. These are highly complex matters. The Foreign Office should make a statement on the question whether our European partners can implement sanctions.

Mr. McNamara

I was hoping for a moment that my hon. Friend would say that he was going to Rome for other reasons, not so much to be canonised as to be made Grand Inquisitor. He underlines the points that I made. They must be answered by the Government. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will persevere with both amendments and that hon. Members wil be able to vote on them.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Mr. Douglas Hurd.

Mr. Dalyell

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Dalyell

No.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I have called the Minister. Mr. Douglas Hurd.

Mr. Hurd

In moving his amendment, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) was right to recall that in this legislation we are dealing not with a quarrel simply between the United States and Iran but with a major breach of international law. From that thinking stemmed his speech and the moving of the amendment. The hon. Gentleman was right in his second point, that there was in December a consensus—what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) called a comity of nations—on this point, reflected in the Security Council resolution of 4 December. That consensus was broken in January, when the Soviet Union decided to veto the successor resolution that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said that he supported.

It is not sensible to say that the Soviet Union has a vested interest in solving the problem of the hostages when, although it may have an interest in embassies being respected, that interest in diplomatic immunity and international law was subordinated to another interest. That must have been so, otherwise Russia would not have voted as it did. It is a little naive to suppose that the decision by the Soviet Union on where its balance of advantage lay has changed since January or that there is any evidence to suggest that another approach to Russia would yield a different result.

The United States did not then rush into sanctions or rescue attempts or abandon the United Nations. The Security Council is not the only organ of the United Nations, and after the veto the Secretary-General tried to mobilise a commission of inquiry, which did not succeed. He is watching the situation carefully all the time to see whether there is scope for him to come in again.

The Secretary-General is coming to this country on an official visit next week, and we look forward to discussing with him in detail whether he sees any such scope. He is, as a Secretary-General should be, a cautious man and he would not wish to expose himself or his office to another rebuff. However, that is an example of the continuing diplomatic efforts through the United Nations, which we support. The Secretary-General has no need of a new Security Council resolution in order to act. He has article 99 of the Charter, which provides him with the scope for such peacemaking.

At the moment, we do not feel that there is evidence to suppose that a fresh approach to the Security Council, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil suggested, would be fruitful. An unfruitful approach, which ran into a veto again—and there is no evidence to suggest that a veto would not be forthcoming—would set matters back. We do not rule it out for the future, and if there were moves at the Security Council at a time when the Government were considering putting an order before the House it would be reasonable for hon. Members to say "Hold it. While the Security Council is meeting, we should not proceed." However, in present circumstances we do not feel that it would be sensible to advise the Committee to accept the amendment.

There has been no headlong rush into sanctions. Our diplomacy and that of others has been given the fullest possible chance. I have mentioned the efforts of the Secretary-General, and moves by other intermediaries have been tried.

I differ from the basic analysis of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and some of those who support him. I believe that the decision of 22 April and, if the Bill is passed, the existence of the powers that we are seeking will be useful to us and to the other countries that are taking such powers in pursuing the diplomatic path. That point was touched on by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) in his interesting and convincing speech. So, there is not the harsh conflict between the two ideas that the hon. Member for West Lothian sketched out repeatedly this afternoon and evening.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil said that the House was entitled to an account of the approach that my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will take at the meeting in Naples. That falls within the scope of these amendments, so I shall try to answer his question as best I can. I am sure that the Ministers' meeting on Saturday will start—as Ministers' meetings tend to do—from the decisions of their last meeting. Those decisions are not sacred, but, nevertheless, they are a starting point. The starting point, therefore, is their decision—sketched at greater length yesterday—that if by 17 May there has been no decisive progress leading to the release of the hostages they will jointly implement sanctions. I should imagine that the Ministers will review the progress that has been made towards the release of the hostages since they last met.

They will review what powers they have been able to take in accordance with the decision of 22 April. They will review what other discussions have taken place and what other events have occurred in this context. I imagine that my right hon. and noble Friend will report to them on his lengthy and profound discussions on the subject in Washington, of which I gave a brief account to the House yesterday. No doubt other Ministers will wish to report on other happenings and discussions in which they have been involved or of which they have heard. There will be a general stocktaking, and in the light of that they will try to make a decision.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of reaching decisions in that forum. On the question of Iran, the record has been fairly good but, as Labour Members know, such agreement is not to be taken for granted. They will try to reach agreement, and they will try to consider what further diplomatic moves by ourselves and by the Nine and others might be useful. The idea that after a period of inactivity we are simply rushing headlong into sanctions is inaccurate. We have been trying to use our diplomacy in support of the release of the hostages. That effort will continue.

Having decided what diplomatic moves are most helpful and most fruitful, they will then consider whether those prospects would be helped or hindered by using part of the powers that they possess to introduce sanctions. Obviously, all the powers will not be used at once, because no hon. Member or anyone in Europe would expect the full panoply to be deployed immediately, but they will decide whether part of the powers could usefully be used straight away in support of their general analysis and prescription for the situation.

That approach seems to be in line with the way in which Her Majesty's Government and the Nine have been trying to tackle the problem since November. It is in a straight line from what has already occurred, and it is a reasonable approach. Our allies in the United States—people with strong investments in international law, if I may put it that way—are taking a reasonable approach at this time, six months after the taking of the hostages, and it is a reasonable approach for the Foreign Ministers of the Nine to take this weekend.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney and Poplar)

In spite of the explanation that the Minister has given of the background to the Government's consideration with their colleagues in Italy in a few days, he has missed the main point of our concern. The Nine, as he fairly recalled, will have on their agenda the minutes of their last meeting. That meeting was held against a background of events that were different from events that followed. They set themselves a deadline which at that time seemed reasonable. Very important events have intervened between the last meeting of the Nine and the forthcoming meeting in Venice. It would be foolish to be tied to the previous timetable. That is why we say that it is right to take a further diplomatic initiative in the Security Council.

12 midnight

Mr. Hurd

I am sure that the Ministers will consider all the events that have occurred since they last met and what diplomatic moves under the United Nations aegis or under other umbrellas might seem to be fruitful in the immediate future. The difficulty about the amendment is that it ties us to a particular form of diplomacy at a particular time. That is why I think that it would probably not be sensible for the House to tie itself and the Government to this specific proposal.

We have some difficulty with amendments Nos. 36 and 39. I cannot advise the House to accept them. There is a certain oddity, inasmuch as the amendment and the schedule apply only to the countries of the EEC and not to Japan, whereas a consistent theme of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), in his probings and proddings during the past months, has been that the EEC was not adequate, and he has been wanting to act through the OECD. I entirely understand his main point—he has put it often enough—that in this context it is not enough simply to talk about the Nine. Therefore, it is a little surprising that he should confine himself to the Nine in the amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) argued that if we put this proposal into our legislation others might feel entitled to follow suit in their legislation. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in his elaborate scenario, did not dispose of that point. If everyone insists on starting last, it is a fair bet that the effort will never be made. Therefore, in practice, this formulation would not aid what we are trying to do and could land us in considerable practical difficulty and confusion.

Nevertheless, this is a point of substance, with which we agree in principle. We want to make sure that we act alongside our main trading partners. So far, so good. The common position so far achieved is the result of a genuine feeling among many Governments in Europe and Japan that there has been a serious breach of international law and a real consciousness, which has been expounded to me by many of our partners, of the great height of genuine feeling on this subject in the United States. That is an element that has been lacking in the contributions made by Opposition Members. They do not seem to have this perception of the storm of emotion that is continuing across the Atlantic. It has been fairly easy, up to now, to reach common positions. I quite agree that "up to now" is not very far, and that this must be maintained if the matter is to succeed.

Officials and Ministers of the Nine are now wrestling with the problem with which we are wrestling in the House. That is the problem of how far existing powers are sufficient and how far new powers have to be taken. There was a meeting of officials on this subject in Brussels today, but I do not intend, because the picture is incomplete, to give an account of the information which we have received country by country.

Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)

Does my hon. Friend realise that the day of action has just started, and does he not find it amazing that there are many members of the Socialist Party still present in the Chamber? Should they not now walk out?

Mr. Hurd

I am delighted that so many right hon. and hon. Members are here discharging their duty. It seems to me an admirable thing, in which we should all take pleasure. If my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) will allow me to continue, I was saying that I would not lay before the House a picture that might mistakenly be understood to be complete.

Before any orders were laid on a particular point under this Act, if it becomes an Act, we would need to show that in that particular respect of that particular proposal in that particular order our trading competitiors were equipped and proceeding to do the same.

The hon. Member for West Lothian quite fairly raised the question of Japan and we were earlier somewhat at cross purposes. I did not have, nor did he, momentarily, the press cutting on which he relied and which I have now seen. It does not, however, chime with our information and, though I do not say that I flatly contradict it, it does not tie in with the evidence that we have. That evidence is that Japan is associating itself closely with the EEC decision and has reaffirmed its intention to act in concert with us. That is part of the policy that is still being pursued.

I repeat that it is not enough to have simple common declarations; we need machinery that is effective for putting this into practice. This is a lesson that we should learn from Rhodesia and a lesson that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who, I think, is not here, quite rightly commented upon.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) apologised for not being here.

Mr. Hurd

Yes, he did. The machinery does exist within the Nine, and the Japanese Government have asked to be associated with that machinery and with these consultations. We are in particularly close touch with the Governments of Australia and Canada, who are closely affected.

The measures that the Foreign Secretary will agree in Naples, rather than in Venice, will depend to a substantial extent on our judgment of the degree to which those measures can effectively be carried through in concert with our trading competitors.

The points made by the Opposition Front Bench in moving their amendment are, in our view, valid and are much in the forefront of our minds. We do not, however, believe that the points of principle that they raise are best secured by the amendments that they tabled, and we therefore hope that they will not press them to a Division.

Mr. Rowlands

Having listened to the Minister, I must say that we had hoped for more effective assurances on the aspects raised by both sets of amendments.

We are extremely interested in the fact that the Secretary-General of the United Nations is coming next week and we feel that that visit reinforces our view that this issue should go back to the Security Council. We have already strongly argued that that should happen. We are also reinforced in our view by the slightly disturbing words used by the Minister about this weekend's meeting in Naples.

It seems that the starting point of the discussions in Naples will be the minutes of the last meeting. The minutes of the last meeting, it seems to me, are almost irrelevant. The 17 May deadline is irrelevant. We should examine the issue again because of the important events that have taken place since April.

We are deeply concerned that the Minister of State did not say that this weekend's meeting would discuss whether any of the powers should be exercised. We suspect that the Secretary-General will advise the Minister not to implement the powers and not to exercise any form of sanctions while political and diplomatic initiatives continue. For those reasons, we cannot ask leave to withdraw our amendment.

Mr. Joplingrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put. That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 167, Noes 23.

Division No. 294]	AYES	[12.11 am
Alexander, Richard	Cockeram, Eric	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Alton, David	Colvin, Michael	Gummer, John Selwyn
Ancram, Michael	Cope, John	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Aspinwall, Jack	Crouch, David	Hampson, Dr Keith
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Dorrell, Stephen	Hannam, John
Banks, Robert	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Dover, Denshore	Hawksley, Warren
Beith, A. J.	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Heddle, John
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Dunnett, Jack	Henderson, Barry
Berry, Hon Anthony	Durant, Tony	Hill, James
Best, Keith	Dykes, Hugh	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Hooson, Tom
Biggs-Davison, John	Elliott, Sir William	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Blackburn, John	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Hurd, Hon Douglas
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Fairgrieve, Russell	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham	Fisher, Sir Nigel	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Brinton, Tim	Forman, Nigel	Kershaw, Anthony
Brooke, Hon Peter	Fox, Marcus	King, Rt Hon Tom
Brotherton, Michael	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Knight, Mrs Jill
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Garel-Jones, Tristan	Latham, Michael
Buck, Antony	Glyn, Dr Alan	Lawrence, Ivan
Budgen, Nick	Goodlad, Alastair	Le Marchant, Spencer
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Gorst, John	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Gow, Ian	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Gower, Sir Raymond	Lyell, Nicholas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Grieve, Percy	Macfarlane, Neil
Clegg, Sir Walter	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	MacGregor, John
Major, John	Penhaligon, David	Steen, Anthony
Marland, Paul	Percival, Sir Ian	Stevens, Martin
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mather, Carol	Rathbone, Tim	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Stradling Thomas, J.
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Renton, Tim	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Rhodes James, Robert	Tebbit, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Temple-Morris, Peter
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Thompson, Donald
Mills, lain (Meriden)	Ridsdale, Julian	Thorne, Neil (llford South)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Rossi, Hugh	Trippier, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Viggers, Peter
Moate, Roger	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman	Waddington, David
Monro, Hector	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Montgomery, Fergus	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Waller, Gary
Murphy, Christopher	Shersby, Michael	Ward, John
Myles, David	Silvester, Fred	Watson, John
Needham, Richard	Sims, Roger	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Nelson, Anthony	Speed, Keith	Whitney, Raymond
Normanton, Tom	Speller, Tony	Wickenden, Keith
Onslow, Cranley	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)	Winterton, Nicholas
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Sproat, lain	Wolfson, Mark
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Squire, Robin	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Parkinson, Cecil	Stainton, Keith
Parris, Matthew	Stanbrook, Ivor	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Stanley, John	Mr. Tony Newton and
Patten, John (Oxford)	Steel, Rt Hon David	Mr. John Wakeham.
NOES
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Haynes, Frank	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)	Sheerman, Barry
Canavan, Dennis	Home Robertson, John	Soley, Clive
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)	Stoddart, David
Dalyell, Tam	Lamond, James	Welsh, Michael
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)
Dixon, Donald	Molyneaux, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Dubs, Alfred	Newens, Stanley	Mr. Kevin McNamara and
Eastham, Ken	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 33, Noes 161.

Division No. 295]	AYES	[12.21 am
Alton, David	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)	Robertson, George
Beith, A. J.	Home Robertson, John	Rowlands, Ted
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)	Sheerman, Barry
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Lamond, James	Soley, Clive
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	McNamara, Kevin	Steel, Rt Hon David
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Stoddart, David
Dalyell, Tam	Molyneaux, James	Welsh, Michael
Dixon, Donald	Newens, Stanley
Dunnett, Jack	Penhaligon, David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	Mr. Walter Harrison and
Eastham, Ken	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Mr. Terry Davis.
Haynes, Frank
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Brooke, Hon Peter	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Ancram, Michael	Brotherton, Michael	Durant, Tony
Aspinwall, Jack	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Dykes, Hugh
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Buck, Antony	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Banks, Robert	Budgen, Nick	Elliott, Sir William
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fairgrieve, Russell
Berry, Hon Anthony	Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Best, Keith	Clarke, Kenneth ( Rushcliffe)	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Bevan, David Gilroy	Clegg, Sir Walter	Forman, Nigel
Biggs-Davison, John	Cockeram, Eric	Fox, Marcus
Blackburn, John	Colvin, Michael	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Cope, John	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Crouch, David	Glyn, Dr Alan
Braine, Sir Bernard	Dorrell, Stephen	Goodlad, Alastair
Bright, Graham	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Gorst, John
Brinton, Tim	Dover, Denshore	Gow, Ian
Gower, Sir Raymond	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Speed, Keith
Grieve, Percy	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Speller, Tony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Moate, Roger	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Gummer, John Selwyn	Monro, Hector	Sproat, lain
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Montgomery, Fergus	Squire, Robin
Hampson, Dr Keith	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Stainton, Keith
Hannam, John	Murphy, Christopher	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hawksley, Warren	Myles, David	Stanley, John
Heddle, John	Needham, Richard	Steen, Anthony
Henderson, Barry	Nelson, Anthony	Stevens, Martin
Hill, James	Normanton, Tom	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Onslow, Cranley	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Hooson, Tom	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Hurd, Hon Douglas	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Tebbit, Norman
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Parkinson, Cecil	Temple-Morris, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Parris, Matthew	Thompson, Donald
Kershaw, Anthony	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)
King, Rt Hon Tom	Patten, John (Oxford)	Trippier, David
Knight, Mrs Jill	Percival, Sir Ian	Viggers, Peter
Latham, Michael	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Waddington, David
Lawrence, Ivan	Rathbone, Tim	Waldegrave, Hon William
Le Marchant, Spencer	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Renton, Tim	Waller, Gary
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Rhodes James, Robert	Ward, John
Lyell, Nicholas	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Watson, John
Macfarlane, Neil	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
MacGregor, John	Ridsdale, Julian	Whitney, Raymond
Major, John	Rossi, Hugh	Wickenden, Keith
Marland, Paul	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	St, John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman	Winterton, Nicholas
Mather, Carol	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Wolfson, Mark
Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Shersby, Michael	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Silvester, Fred	Mr. Tony Newton and
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Sims, Roger	Mr. John Wakeham.

Question accordingly negatived.

12.30 am

Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 1, line 12, at end insert— ' (1B) No Order in Council under this section shall be made unless the Secretary of State has previously certified to each House of Parliament that each of the states listed in the

Schedule to this Act has adopted legislation to the like effect or has made provision to the like effect as that made in the Order in Council.'.—[Mr. Rowlands.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 32, Noes 161.

Division No. 296]	AYES	[12.33 am
Alton, David	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)	Robertson, George
Beith, A. J.	Home Robertson, John	Rowlands, Ted
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)	Sheerman, Barry
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Lamond, James	Soley, Clive
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	McNamara, Kevin	Steel, Rt Hon David
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Stoddart, David
Dalyell, Tam	Molyneaux, James	Welsh, Michael
Dixon, Donald	Newens, Stanley
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Penhaligon, David	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Eastham, Ken	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	Mr. Walter Harrison and
Haynes, Frank	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Mr. Terry Davis.
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Bright, Graham	Crouch, David
Ancram, Michael	Brinton, Tim	Dorrell, Stephen
Aspinwall, Jack	Brooke, Hon Peter	Dover, Denshore
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Brotherton, Michael	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Banks, Robert	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Durant, Tony
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Buck, Antony	Dykes, Hugh
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Budgen, Nick	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Elliott, Sir William
Best, Keith	Carlisle. Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Bevan, David Gilroy	Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Fairgrieve, Russell
Biggs-Davison, John	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Blackburn, John	Clegg, Sir Walter	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Cockeram, Eric	Forman, Nigel
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Colvin, Michael	Fox, Marcus
Braine, Sir Bernard	Cope, John	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Sims, Roger
Glyn, Or Alan	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Speed, Keith
Goodlad, Alastair	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Speller, Tony
Gorst, John	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Gow, Ian	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Moate, Roger	Sproat, lain
Grieve, Percy	Monro, Hector	Squire, Robin
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Montgomery, Fergus	Stainton, Keith
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Gummer, John Selwyn	Murphy, Christopher	Stanley, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Myles, David	Steen, Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith	Needham, Richard	Stevens, Martin
Hannam, John	Nelson, Anthony	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Hawksley, Warren	Newton, Tony	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Heddle, John	Normanton, Tom	Stradling Thomas, J.
Henderson, Barry	Onslow, Cranley	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Hill, James	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Tebbit, Norman
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Temple-Morris, Peter
Hooson, Tom	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Thompson, Donald
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Parkinson, Cecil	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Hurd, Hon Douglas	Parris, Matthew	Trippier, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Viggers, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Patten, John (Oxford)	Waddington, David
Kershaw, Anthony	Percival, Sir Ian	Wakeham, John
King, Rt Hon Tom	Price. David (Eastleigh)	Waldegrave, Hon William
Knight, Mrs Jill	Rathbone, Tim	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Latham, Michael	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Waller, Gary
Lawrence, Ivan	Renton, Tim	Ward, John
Le Marchant, Spencer	Rhodes James, Robert	Watson, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Whitney, Raymond
Lyell, Nicholas	Ridsdale, Julian	Wickenden, Keith
Macfarlane, Neil	Rossi, Hugh	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Major, John	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Winterton, Nicholas
Marland, Paul	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman	Wolfson, Mark
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mather, Carol	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Shersby, Michael	Mr. John MacGregor and
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Silvester, Fred	Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 1, leave out lines 16 to 18.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Question put. That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 165.

Division No. 297]	AYES	[12.44 am
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)	Sheerman, Barry
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Home Robertson, John	Soley, Clive
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Lamond, James	Stoddart, David
Dalyell, Tam	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Welsh, Michael
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Molyneaux, James
Dixon, Donald	Newens, Stanley	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Eastham, Ken	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	Mr. Kevin McNamara and
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
Haynes, Frank
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Brotherton, Michael	Fairgrieve, Russell
Alton, David	Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Ancram, Michael	Buck, Antony	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Aspinwall, Jack	Budgen, Nick	Forman, Nigel
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Fox, Marcus
Banks, Robert	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Beith, A. J.	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Glyn, Dr Alan
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Clegg, Sir Walter	Goodlad, Alastair
Berry, Hon Anthony	Cockeram, Eric	Gorst, John
Best, Keith	Colvin, Michael	Gow, Ian
Bevan, David Gilroy	Cope, John	Gower, Sir Raymond
Biggs-Davison, John	Crouch, David	Grieve, Percy
Blackburn, John	Dorrell, Stephen	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Dover, Denshore	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Gummer, John Selwyn
Braine, Sir Bernard	Durant, Tony	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Bright, Graham	Dykes, Hugh	Hampson, Dr Keith
Brinton, Tim	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Hannam, John
Brooke, Hon Peter	Elliott, Sir William	Hawksley, Warren
Heddle, John	Myles, David	Sproat, lain
Henderson, Barry	Needham, Richard	Squire, Robin
Hill, James	Nelson, Anthony	Stainton, Keith
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Newton, Tony	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hooson, Tom	Normanton, Tom	Stanley, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Onslow, Cranley	Steel, Rt Hon David
Hurd, Hon Douglas	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Steen, Anthony
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Stevens, Martin
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Parkinson, Cecil	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Kershaw, Anthony	Parris, Matthew	Stradling Thomas, J.
King, Rt Hon Tom	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Knight, Mrs Jill	Patten, John (Oxford)	Tebbit, Norman
Latham, Michael	Penhaligon, David	Temple-Morris, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan	Percival, Sir Ian	Thompson, Donald
Le Marchant, Spencer	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Rathbone, Tim	Trippier, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Viggers, Peter
Lyell, Nicholas	Renton, Tim	Waddington, David
Macfarlane, Neil	Rhodes James, Robert	Wakeham, John
Major, John	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Waldegrave, Hon William
Marland, Paul	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Ridsdale, Julian	Waller, Gary
Mather, Carol	Rossi, Hugh	Ward, John
Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Watson, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Whitney, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Wickenden, Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Mills, lain (Meriden)	Shersby, Michael	Winterton, Nicholas
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Silvester, Fred	Wolfson, Mark
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Sims, Roger	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Moate, Roger	Speed, Keith
Monro, Hector	Speller, Tony	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Montgomery, Fergus	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Mr. John MacGregor and
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)	Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
Murphy, Christopher

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 1, line 18, at end insert ' and (c) shall not apply to any contract, if failure to secure that contract would result in people being made redundant or put on

short time; unless the government shall compensate those people for any loss of income.'.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 165.

Division No. 298]	AYES	[12.54 am
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Haynes, Frank	Soley, Clive
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)	Stoddart, David
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Home Robertson, John	Welsh, Michael
Dalyell, Tam	Lamond, James
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Newens, Stanley	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Dixon, Donald	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Mr. Kevin McNamara and
Eastham, Ken	Sheerman, Barry	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Alton, David	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Glyn, Dr Alan
Ancram, Michael	Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Goodlad, Alastair
Aspinwall, Jack	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Gorst, John
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Clegg, Sir Walter	Gow, Ian
Banks, Robert	Cockeram, Eric	Gower, Sir Raymond
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Colvin, Michael	Grieve, Percy
Beith, A. J.	Cope, John	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Crouch, David	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Berry, Hon Anthony	Dorrell, Stephen	Gummer, John Selwyn
Best, Keith	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Dover, Denshore	Hampson, Dr Keith
Biggs-Davison, John	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Hannam, John
Blackburn, John	Durant, Tony	Hawksley, Warren
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Dykes, Hugh	Heddle, John
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Henderson, Barry
Braine, Sir Bernard	Elliott, Sir William	Hill, James
Bright, Graham	Fairgrieve, Russell	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Brinton, Tim	Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Hooson, Tom
Brotherton, Michael	Fisher, Sir Nigel	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Forman, Nigel	Hurd, Hon Douglas
Buck, Antony	Fox, Marcus	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Budgen, Nick	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Kershaw, Anthony	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Stanley, John
King, Rt Hon Tom	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Steel, Rt Hon David
Knight, Mrs Jill	Parkinson, Cecil	Steen, Anthony
Latham, Michael	Parris, Matthew	Elevens, Martin
Lawrence, Ivan	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Le Marchant, Spencer	Patten, John (Oxford)	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Penhaligon, David	Stradling Thomas, J.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Percival, Sir Ian	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Lyell, Nicholas	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Tebbit, Norman
MacGregor, John	Rathbone, Tim	Temple-Morris, Peter
Major, John	Rees-Davies, W, R.	Thompson, Donald
Marland, Paul	Renton, Tim	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Rhodes James, Robert	Trippier, David
Mather, Carol	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Viggers, Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Wakeham, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Ridsdale, Julian	Waldegrave, Hon William
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Rossi, Hugh	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Waller, Gary
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman	Ward, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Watson, John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Wheeler, John
Moate, Roger	Shersby, Michael	Whitney, Raymond
Monro, Hector	Silvester, Fred	Wickenden, Keith
Montgomery, Fergus	Sims, Roger	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Speed, Keith	Winterton, Nicholas
Murphy, Christopher	Speller, Tony	Wolfson, Mark
Myles, David	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Needham, Richard	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Nelson, Anthony	Sproat, lain	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Newton, Tony	Squire, Robin	Mr. David Waddington and
Normanton, Tom	Stainton, Keith	Mr. Peter Brooke.
Onslow, Cranley

Question accordingly negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman

We now come to amendment No. 14.

Mr. Dalyell

With votes of 165 to 17, these proceedings are like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I did rather ask for that. However, those who could easily go to bed ought to recognise that this is the only occasion—they cannot tell me that we can do it on one-and-a-half-hour orders—when we can examine matters of considerable seriousness to this country. Amendment No. 14, dealing with penalties, is such a matter.

I do not want to start trying to score party points, but I was hoping for at least the presence of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), because on Monday he wrote in The Guardian an article headed: Iran vote: Why I'm sitting tight". If the hon. Gentleman had sat tight and not voted, I would not complain, but having written such an article he should have done us the courtesy of being present for the debate, because his words are opposite to the amendment: Even the White House should be able to see it for what it is: simply a cosmetic exercise. And there is much to object to when it comes to penalties for sanctions breaking. May I be forgiven for saying that I wish that the hon. Gentleman had been here to object? We should have heard his reasons. If an hon. Member writes such articles in the press, there is a solemn obligation on him to explain his arguments to colleagues on both sides of the House. Does the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) wish to intervene?

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

I was just agreeing with the hon. Member.

Mr. Dalyell

That is music to my ears. The hon. Member for Aldershot went on: when it comes to penalties for sanction breaking, the ' crime ' that the Commons only last week forgave all those who had sold goods to Rhodesia; for similar misdeeds in the future, the penalties are vague, unspecified, and quite unsatisfactory. I am no soothsayer, but I predict that, if the Bill becomes an Act, sooner rather than later a junior Minister from the Foreign Office or the Department of Trade will ask the House to approve an Iran sanctions amnesty order. It needs no great foresight on my part to predict that. When we have the example behind us, we do not need the glass.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

That depends on what penalties the Government decide to impose on anyone who breaks the regulations. As yet, we have no idea what penalties will be provided. Unless the Government make that clear there is no guarantee that anyone will need an amnesty, anyway.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend is correct. That is one of the mysteries that are not revealed to us. I am not a lawyer, but many of my hon. Friends and I know sufficient to appreciate that it is not satisfactory for the House to pass legislation without any clear idea how it is to be implemented. If we are to make laws, we had better have a clear idea how we are to enforce them.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

As my hon. Friend knows, I submitted an amendment which was not called but would have been an Iran sanctions amnesty order. Perhaps he would like to express a view on the question whether he feels that such an amendment—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman has already talked the amendment out of court. It would be completely out of order to discuss it.

Mr. Dalyell

I know the idea behind my hon. Friend's proposal. I asked lawyers about it, and it seems to be fairly sensible at one level, although not perfectly drafted in parliamentary terms. I understand why the amendment was not selected.

If we bring forward legislation without being clear about the penalties, we shall land ourselves in all sorts of trouble. The Minister may say that the question of penalties must be discussed on Saturday at the Foreign Ministers' meeting, but that raises the question of what penalties will be imposed in Belgium, France, Germany and Italy. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), who was a parliamentary colleague when we were both Members of the European Assembly—the indirectly elected Assembly—and who is now a Member of the European Parliament, knows very well that there are considerable legal problems in France and Italy that make it difficult for those countries to impose sanctions on current contracts, and almost certainly on new contracts. It is extremely difficult to differentiate between a current contract and a new contract, because there are problems of renewal. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) raised that point yesterday, but we have had no coherent answer.

We must be serious about this matter—even at this time of night. I face a problem in putting forward this amendment. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Minister for Trade have both shown great equanimity and good manners throughout the debate. The Minister for Trade began his reply to my earlier intervention by saying that I could not have it both ways. He said first—I borrow the expression "Isaiah A" from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—that there are so many loopholes in this sieve-like legislation that it cannot work anyway.

The second proposition that he attributed to me was that this would be damaging to British industry. I expressed myself in terms of Armageddon and said that that was completely contradictory and that it was a juxtapositioning of Isaiah B and Isaiah A. However, on reflection, it seems to me that there is no contradiction. It is like getting the worst of all possible worlds. It cannot work, but because we have espoused this cause we will get the worst of all possible worlds, not only in Iran but throughout the Middle East.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Chairman, because he has been in Iran recently and I suspect that he will deploy the argument about the way in which penalties will affect the situation in Iran. We are committed to getting the worst of all possible worlds. We should not imagine for a moment that there will not be a tit-for-tat situation. The notion that, somehow or other, Iranians will sit idly by, do nothing and accept our policy on current contracts while we are not putting forward new contracts is against the laws of human nature. People do not act in that way. Most hon. Members, were they stubborn aesthetic Iranians, would react in the most difficult way—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing something that we have already discussed earlier—whether there should be sanctions. That has already been decided. What we are now discussing is whether a breach of sanctions should be penalised. That is the full extent of what we are discussing, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to that issue.

1.15 am

Mr. Dalyell

No penalties are specified in the Bill. In the middle 1960s, when we embarked on a course—wise or unwise—of sanctions for Rhodesia, it was clearly laid down what the penalties would be. Whether or not one accepts the Bingham committee's report, there was comparatively little dubiety about it. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and others, the consequences for persons convicted of breaking sanctions were clearly spelt out.

The Secretary of State for the Environonment, whose presence we greatly welcome, shakes his head. I remember him, as a brilliant young Back Bencher, chiding my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton on the unworkability of sanctions in Rhodesia. If he likes to contribute to the debate he will be extremely welcome and I will give way to him.

Mr. Parkinson

It might help the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—I know that he does not like wasting the time of the House—if I say to him that if the words in the amendment were added to the Bill they would not make one jot or tittle of difference to it. The power that he seeks to put in the Bill is already contained in it. The amendment is totally unecessary and would not add anything to the Bill that is not already in it.

Mr. Dalyell

At what point in the Bill is the power contained?

Mr. Parkinson

May I intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech and answer him specifically?

It is unnecessary for the Bill to confer specific power to create criminal offences and lay down penalities for such offences. The Bill already contains such power. Provided that offences relate to the contracts described in subsections (1) and (2), and that the creation of a criminal offence in that connection is necessary or expedient in consequence of breaches of international law by Iran ", provision in the form of criminal offences may be made. The only restriction is on the ground of excessive jurisdiction, and that is described in detail in subsection (4). The Bill provides that the Government may take such action as is necessary or expedient arising from breaches of the provisions of the Bill. That is repeated in subsection (3). Subsection (4) makes the point clear by saying: but no provision so made shall render a person guilty of an offence in respect of anything done or omitted by him". In other words, the fact that that subsection is in the Bill is proof that an offence can be contained in the earlier section, otherwise there would be no point in it. By the way, I am informed that that is exactly how provision was made in the Rhodesia legislation for these powers.

Mr. Dalyell

That is an astonishing and important statement. It is the kind of statement that should not be made at 1.15 in the morning. It is unsatisfactory that such a statement should be made at such a time. The situation as established by the Minister has certainly not been understood by the press. The press has a different impression. What departmental briefing was there?

Mr. Parkinson

I am telling the hon. Gentleman that we do not like to litter our legislation by repeating, in the words that he would like to see inserted, powers that are already there. The powers under the Rhodesia legislation were provided in exactly the same fashion as in this legislation. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept my assurance that the power to do what he wishes is contained in the Bill. I give my word on that.

Mr. Dalyell

I accept the hon. Gentleman's word.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dalyell

I take the Minister's word in good faith because he is a parliamentary colleague of good faith, but I must ask whether we can be told the level of penalty that a firm might expect to incur should it break the sanctions.

Mr. Parkinson

We have no more idea of the penalty specified in the Bill as it is now than we would have if we inserted those words. The penalties will be specified—as they would be if the hon. Gentleman's words were in the Bill—in the orders that will be made under the Bill.

Mr. Bennett

Does my hon. Friend agree that the words in the amendment are not really important? It is part of the task of the House, when in Committee, to probe what is contained in legislation. What is important is to find out how the Government intend to use the powers, whether they are specified in the Bill or set out in an amendment.

The Government have so far concentrated their attention on criticising the words of the amendment instead of telling us how they intend to carry out sanctions against those individuals who might break the regulations.

Mr. Dalyell

That is exactly the issue. How does one set about imposing sanctions, and Parliament's will, on those who are supposed to have transgressed—

Mr. James Lamond

Without wishing to delay my hon. Friend for too long, may I say that I have followed this important discussion closely and I have listened to what the Minister said? He said that powers to do what the amendment proposes are already enshrined in legislation elsewhere, and he read part of that legislation to us. But the amendment says that when the order comes forward it. shall lay down statutory penalties. The words are "shall lay down".

The Minister said that the powers are there and that the statutory instrument may lay down penalties. There is a difference between "may" and "shall". I may have misunderstood the Minister, but it seems to me that the amendment being proposed by my hon. Friend—to which I hope to speak shortly—is somewhat stronger in intention than the legislation quoted by the Minister.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend's point is valid. I make no complaint about the Minister's asking for legal advice. Perhaps one of the Law Officers should be here. I do not ask for the Attorney-General, because I do not believe that the most senior members of the Government should be here at 1.25 am. Perhaps we should send for the Solicitor-General for Scotland. That would improve the quality of debate. However, I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Sir I. Percival), the English Solicitor-General, can do an adequate job.

Seriously, the difficulty about penalties arises out of the question of renewal. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said on Second Reading that some contracts with Iran had an option for renewal. One can imagine the legal battle in deciding whether a contract is renewable, a past contract or a new contract. The lawyers will have a field day. A Dickensian circumlocution office would not compare with it. If such an option for renewal came up, would it be treated as a new contract or an existing contract? We are talking not of hypothetical situations but of export industries which rely upon constant renewal. We are discussing the motor, chemical and heavy machinery industries and others. The strength of British exports to the Middle East is based on continuity.

How does one impose penalties on a company that says that it is engaging in part of an old or renewed contract rather than a new contract? That will take a long time to decide in a court of law. Companies will hold out as long as possible because they will be looking for an Iranian sanctions amnesty order that will certainly come before the House. There is a built-in argument for delaying decisions in the courts.

Mr. Bennett

Which level of court will be used? There has been a long debate in Committee about which level should be used and what rights people should have. I do not know whether prosecutions will take place in the High Court or in the country courts.

Mr. Dalyell

That is one of the difficulties of meshing in the 1939 Act and the measure that we are discussing. It is far from clear which court has jurisdiction to impose penalties.

Mr. Parkinson

How does the hon. Gentleman's amendment make that question clear?

Mr. Dalyell

The Government are saying that there is an obligation on their critics to table perfectly drafted amendments. We are asking the Government to clarify the matter. When the Minister asked how the amendment would help, he appeared unclear about the courts in which any action would take place. Commercial law is very complex. If the Minister does not like that, he must send for the Solicitor-General for Scotland—

1.30 am

Mr. Parkinson

We have good lawyers.

Mr. Dalyell

The good lawyers could then produce a legal answer to the conundrum put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). We were told that no decision had been taken to use such powers and that no such decision would be taken unless other countries were to do the same. I wish to know how the court, the penalties and the sanctions will be slotted in to what happens among our partners. What happens with the Japanese? Will there be uniform sanctions? We are told that the Commission has no locus in the matter. I see that the Minister agrees with that. How are the penalties to be co-ordinated with Japan, the EEC and other countries such as Taiwan, Singapore and the Philippines, which will try to step into the Iranian market? I know that it is about 1.30 am, but it is a perfectly sensible question. How do we synchronise the law of Britain on sanctions with that of the Philippines and Taiwan? It is not a ridiculous question. To be effective, the sanctions must be uniform where there are competitive markets.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Does not my hon. Friend accept that the lesson that we learnt from the example of Rhodesia was that uniform sanctions and their implementation by our European allies was completely impossible? There is much evidence to suggest that a number of Western European countries refused to implement the sanctions. A prize example of that was the French. There were a number of reported incidents where they refused to take action. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that if individual countries accept the need for legislation yet refuse to make it work, our own nationals will be put at an unfair disadvantage?

The Second Deputy Chairman

Before the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) answers, I ask him to read the words of his amendment. In the past 10 minutes he has given every reason why the amendment should not be passed. Will he tell us whether he is moving the amendment or telling us why it should not be accepted?

Mr. Dalyell

It is a probing amendment. If the Committee were upstairs, there would be no question about its being an acceptable probing amendment. I have an obligation to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The answer lies in the terms of the statements of the Patronat—the main French employers' organisation —which issued public statements to the effect that it doubts whether sanctions are legal. It is a sheer illusion to imagine that the French Government will not pursue their own commercial interests. They have had more relations with Iran, and over a longer period, than any other commercial interest of any other European Parliament.

I return to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South. He gave the example of Luxembourg. Of course, it was not quite as hypothetical as he made out. It is possibly unlikely that Luxembourg would do what the right hon. Gentleman said, because the only time when Luxembourg really vetoes is when it is proposed to take Community institutions out of Luxembourg. However, the Belgians are a different kettle of fish. Henri Simonet has had great difficulty with his coalition partners, and Mr. van Meiert has said that it is all about President Carter's re-election. They are both senior Belgian politicians.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

We are getting to the heart of it.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend said that we are getting to the heart of it. I regret very much that amendment No. 7 was not chosen. But what I have said applies to both France and Italy. I know that Conservative Members are good natured about this, and I cannot complain. But they must not ridicule what I am saying.

It is only through self-education in the House of Commons that eventually we uplift the various paving stones and find all the beetles and little "weaselly" things underneath. As soon as one starts lifting the paving stones and asking the awkward questions, one gets further and further into its unworkability. All the difficulties crawl out from underneath the paving stones. It is the job of the House of Commons to lift those paving stones.

Therefore, the Government had better concentrate their minds on the co-ordination of penalties. When Dr. Waldheim comes to London on Saturday on his official visit—[Interruption.] We are told that he is coming to discuss these matters. I believe that he should be asked whether the United Nations is prepared to do anything to co-ordinate penalties. It is all very well to talk about the opportunities, as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office did about Dr. Waldheim's visit, but sanctions damage that kind of opportunity.

The Minister shakes his head. One of the things on which we part company is our view of human nature. If one starts imposing sanctions on people, it is an unpleasant thing to do. It is a pinprick. It is no good talking about the window of opportunity and an opportunity to discuss things seriously. Therefore, one must be very clear about how the penalties are arranged so that, to use the Government's own words, we are neither in advance of nor lagging behind our competitors.

Indeed—this is part of the lack of realism in all this—even if we were to agree in the West, who thinks that the Eastern block would not connive and help in every way, because it would not be party to it? Incidentally, if it is said "But Iran depends on certain specific goods from the West", there is no penalty—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman would be able to mention every country in the world if his remarks were in order, but they are not in order. We are discussing penalties in regard to a breach of any of the sanctions, not whether Eastern European countries will fill in gaps, and so on. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the point that we are discussing.

Mr. Dalyell

You say, Mr. Crawshaw, that I could mention every country in the world. But part of the difficulty is that we are on circuitous routes. As I said on "The World at One", the road to Tehran lies through Moscow. It is no good saying that I am going all round the world, because in order to discuss the problem properly one must see it in total, not only geographically but also, as some of us believe, in terms of time span.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his arguments to penalties. He is advancing good reasons why no sanctions should be imposed, but we have already passed that part of the Bill. Will he address his remarks to the question whether penalties should be imposed for breaches of sanctions?

Mr. Dalyell

Penalties that will not be applied universally are unrealistic.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

My hon. Friend has referred to statutory penalties. Would it be in order for him to enlighten the Committee by explaining the types of penalty that he is considering? If we are to debate these matters, we should be informed of the form that penalties will take. Does he think that penalties will be standard throughout the European Community?

Mr. Dalyell

That is the point. Are they to be standard penalties throughout the European Community? Are these penalties to be standard for Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines or anywhere else? In particular, are they to be standard for the United States of America? This is the difficulty in which we find ourselves when we indulge in gesture politics.

We know from earlier debates—it has not been denied—that American goods are getting into Iran through Dubai and Bahrain. There should be an equality of penalty with the Americans. Have we talked to the Americans about penalties?

Contrary to general belief, I am not anti-American. However, there is a considerable up and down in the American Government. I became cynical about events in Washington when Walt Rostow summoned me into his office in the base of the White House in 1967. When one has seen an American academic euphoric with power, enjoying himself hugely, lecturing on Vietnam—my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has had similar experiences—and lecturing most violently on how the British have lost their nerve and arguing that they should be in favour of a policy east of Suez, one knows the sort of thing that goes on in the American Government. They are a Government who speak with several voices.

Rostow has gone. He was succeeded by Kissinger. We now have Dr. Brzezinski. In Washington there is a veritable babble of competing advisers. Often the advice is far from objective. We would not be in the Chamber now if it were not for President Carter's Washington. Dr. Brzezinski has all the hang-ups of his European past. I do not normally complain about other people's wives, but he is married to a grand neice of President Benes of Czechoslovakia, who committed suicide in the 1930s.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. We have enough to discuss without going through all these family connections.

Mr. Dalyell

Even the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) is interested. It is these interesting facts late at night that reveal glimpses of the truth. We would not be in this position were it not for these rather human factors.

Like many of my colleagues, I like the United States. However, I have the gravest doubts about the way in which federal Washington is governed. It is the Dr. Brzezinskis of this world who are asking us to impose penalties and to ruin British industry. For what are we being asked to do that? Many of us believe that this started—

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is an argument about why we should not impose sanctions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will discuss the subject of penalties.

1.45 am

Mr. Dalyell

Penalties are linked to the United States of America. Professor Stanley Hoffmann, in an article about the reactions of Europeans in The Guardian of 12 May, wrote: they should not hesitate to state their own position, to dissent from the United States when they believe that American leaders are muddle-headed or shortsighted, and to press for long-term courses of action that avoid both appeasement and provocation. Only in this way can they succeed either in rescuing Mr. Carter from inconsistency or in redressing the balance "—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have been very patient. I think that I have made clear what I expect the hon. Gentleman to discuss. He is not discussing penalties. He is going over the subject of sanctions again.

Mr. Dalyell

We are faced by an interlocked problem. I think that I have a right to ask what penalties Washington is imposing on the American people. What are the American Government doing to ensure that American industry—which wants to maintain technical links with markets in Iran and the Middle East—is subjected to penalties?

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Chrome ore is shipped to the United States of America from Rhodesia. Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the American Government have taken no action about those shipments.

Mr. Dalyell

I do not wish to destroy the good will of the Chair. However, the Atlanticists have a serious case to answer. We must consider how penalties will affect those whom the Iranians trust and those who continue to trade with their traditional customers in Iran. What is the Government's notion of the type of people that they are dealing with in Iran? Many of them do not believe that the taking of hostages was a horific act. None of my hon. Friends would excuse the taking of hostages—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. This subject was debated fully yesterday. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that this has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell

With respect, Mr. Crawshaw this subject has some relevance to the amendment. We are discussing the continuity of trade and the trust that has been built up by our constituents. I think of Massey-Ferguson and of British Leyland. If those firms are to be subjected to penalties, how will they be able to trade in that market? That difficulty also applies to current contracts, and to food and medical supplies, which are exempted. There will be a tit-for-tat reaction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) was a Member of the European Assembly. She noted that the Commission had no responsibility. I think that she will agree that the European Parliament has no responsibility. However, that does not stop it from passing resolutions. But, nevertheless, this again is a grey area.

The way that it relates to penalties is this. I borrow the phrase of the right hon. Member for Down, South. Do we go pari passu with other competitors? [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] At the same place; in the same way; accepting the same level of penalties. Has the hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman) a better translation?

It is a question of doing it simultaneously and indentically with other member States.

In order to make sense of this, one has to refer to the contribution yesterday of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He said: Meanwhile, we have been working on how we would translate this agreement into national terms. It was agreed that we should each take national measures. This is not a question of Community legislation. At that point he was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton): Will the hon. Gentleman confirm the report in The Times last week that the nine EEC diplomats had had a meeting and had unanimously said that economic sanctions would be counterproductive? To that, the Minister of State replied: I cannot confirm that because it is not so. I hope that hon. Members will permit me to continue with my speech before asking me to give way again. We have been working on how to translate this agreement into national measures. We have received representations from many hon. Members in different parts of the House on specific points and, also, representations from British firms. We have spent a lot of time—this may be what the hon. Gentleman refers to, although the report he has seen is wrong—working on details with our European partners and other Governments, particularly the Government of Japan. An important point has to be made. Some letters I have received chide us for not acting alone and at once to support the United States. There has been quite a volume of correspondence to this effect. In our view, it is right, in principle, to act whenever we can, in concert with our partners, and it is also, in this case, a matter of plain common sense. We do not intend either to lag behind or to jump ahead of our other main competitors. We do not intend to take measures that have the effect of delivering trade into the hands of our competitors."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 916–17.] Having studied this, I went to the very competent section of the Library that deals with these matters. I have a letter, which I think has to be read out, in connection with penalties. It says: You asked, as I understand it, whether the proposed UK sanctions against Iran would be in conflict with our legal obligations as a member State of the EEC. It seems to me that this cannot be realistically argued, since all nine member Governments, represented by Foreign Ministers, agreed at their meeting of 22 April to impose sanctions on the lines of the vetoed US Security Council resolution (which Britain and France voted for). The text of the communiqué of 22 April was enclosed. I shall spare the Committee the full text, but—

Mr. James Lamond

It would be helpful in enabling us to understand the letter if my hon. Friend would tell us to whom it was addressed. I think that he omitted to mention that.

Mr. Dalyell

It is addressed to me. It is signed by Simon Young of the International Affairs Section.

Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditch)

That has nothing to do with penalties.

Mr. Dalyell

It does. [Interruption.] It is dated 13 May—very much up to date. [Interruption.]

I do not know whether the Government Chief Whip welcomes all the searching questions which are now being put to me about the letter.

The important part of the communiqué is paragraph 5: The Foreign Ministers of the Nine, deeply concerned that a continuation of this situation may endanger international peace and security, have decided to seek immediate legislation where necessary in their national Parliaments to impose sanctions against Iran in accordance with the Security Council resolution on Iran, dated 10 January 1980, which was vetoed and in accordance with the tenets of international law. They believe that these legislative processes should be completed by 17 May, the date of their informal meeting in Naples.

Mr. Hal Miller

On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. I have been listening with some good humour, but very close attention, to the hon. Gentleman, and I am still trying to relate his remarks and this very interesting letter to the question of the penalties, which is the subject of the amendment. I wonder whether you have had that difficulty.

The Second Deputy Chairman

It will not be unknown to the Committee that I have been on my feet a few times—perhaps as often as the hon. Gentleman. I keep asking the hon. Gentleman to link his remarks to the matter of the penalties.

Mr. Dalyell

All will soon be revealed. The communiqué continues: In the absence of decisive progress on the release of the hostages, they will then proceed immediately to the common implementation of sanctions. Here we are straight on to penalties: Ministers consider that, pending the entering into force of the measures mentioned above, no new export or services contract with persons or organisations in Iran should be concluded as of from now. This is the critical point: Steps will be taken within the Community in order that the implementation of the measures decided upon should not obstruct the proper functioning of the Common Market. This is extremely important, because my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe, who is a student of Community institutions, has had a great deal to say over the past five years—she is a so-called anti-Marketeer and pro-Marketeer—about the way that the regulations of the Common Market can override and perhaps interfere with—if I could borrow her kind of phrase in this context—the proper jurisdiction of national Governments.

What kind of synchronisation of penalties is likely to take place? If it will be neither ahead nor behind our partners, one has to know the means and mechanism whereby that desirable state of affairs will be implemented.

We come back to the question of the Belgians. The Belgians have this problem. Simonet has talked about the minimum basis of solidarity and has come—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to cover every country in Europe? If so, I shall come to the conclusion that he is seeking not to try to expedite the Bill but to hold it back. I should not like to think that was his intention. He started by complaining because there was nothing about penalties in the Bill—his amendment is asking for them—and then spent the rest of the time saying why we should not have penalties. I hope that he will say whether we should have penaltes. I hope that he will say whether he is moving the amendment. If it is a probing amendment, he has given the Minister many points to which he will get answers, if the Minister can answer. The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for about 40 minutes.

Mr. Dalyell

This is our only opportunity to look in detail at absolutely valid points. I think that we should consider the question of the Belgians.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I am not going to listen to the hon. Gentleman go into every country and its legislation. If he wants to refer to the specific legislation that we are putting through, I shall listen to him, but I shall not allow him to continue in this vein.

Mr. Dalyell

I am not going through every country in Europe, but possibly one should turn to the position of France. Is it not a fact that France faces legal and constitutional problems in preventing the completion of existing contracts? In French law, does not the action of sanctions expose the Government of France to claims for compensation since any action is regarded as expropriation? Does anyone really imagine that France will resist the temptation to accept follow-on contracts, if not overtly new contracts? To do any such thing would be a departure for the French Government.

2 am

This raises the whole question of the synchronisation of penalties. Either the Government mean what they say about being neither ahead or nor behind our partners, or they do not. The French hope to win a $2.3 billion deal to build the Underground in Tehran, not to mention a $150 million contract for the delivery of four Airbuses in 1983. We are concerned with these aircraft deliveries. What kind of penalties will operate and what kind of compensation may be paid to Marcel Dassault—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it plain to me that he is anxious that we should be in step with our partners in this matter. If I allow the hon. Member to continue in this vein, it would be possible for him to consider all the contracts of every Government in Europe. That would be completely out of order. The hon. Member has made his point, and I would have thought that he would want the Minister to answer. But he is repeating himself, and if he continues like this I shall come to the conclusion that it is tedious repetition.

Mr. Dalyell

I do not talk about every contract, but there are certain major contracts that I wish to consider. Also, tedious repetition is an elusive matter. The last time I was accused of tedious repetition was on the Scotland Bill. Had I been ruled out of order on that Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), a former Lord Provost of Aberdeen, knows very well, things might have turned out differently. Had the Government got their legislation through the first time, there would have been a Government in Edinburgh today and a Prime Minister of Scotland, and we would have been three-quarters of the way towards the break-up of the United Kingdom. Therefore, accusing Mem-Members of Parliament of tedious repetition when they are producing fact after fact to establish their case can be—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. It is because the hon. Member is producing one fact after another, all of which mean the same thing, that I am coming to the conclusion that he is indulging in tedious repetition. I hope that he will appreciate that the amendment is about penalties. Occasionally he gets to the point, but it is only occasionally. Will he please return to the penalties?

Mr. Dalyell

I am dealing with the synchronisation of penalties. More than 90 per cent. of contracts between the French and the Iranians are covered by export insurance and guarantees, provided by the State-controlled COPAS organisation. In most cases insurance policies give up to 90 per cent. for political risks. Who pays the penalties if the penalties are imposed? The penalties are as yet unspecified. Will there be the same level of penalty among the Western European countries, because I do not want to lose the good will of the Chair, and go on to lose that of Germany.

My hon. Friend the Member for Workington raised the question of Salzgitter, the big steel firm. The managing director, Ernst Peiper, said that company sales to Iran were running at about 90 million deutschemarks per year in the year to June 1980. Salzgitter in the last few months has done very much better. The question is whether it is to be compensated by the Government of the Federal Republic, and is compensation to take place at the same level in the Federal Republic as occurs in Britain? Unless there is a similar attitude towards compensation, there can be no synchronisation and we are put at a disadvantage.

This is a fairly solid argument. It involves not only Salzigitter but the well-known firm of Krupp. Is Iran's £500 million investment in the West German firm of Krupp subject to an arrestment order, and what will be the position there? It is no good hon. Members laughing. These are practical points. Where else shall we able to discuss them? Arrestment orders are not laughing matters, and a great many jobs and a great deal of wealth are involved. The Minister of State, Department of Trade may treat arrestment orders with unbecoming levity, but I regard them as matters of extreme seriousness.

Krupp is working on the Sar Chesmeh copper project worth 130 million deutschemarks, and last year Krupp sold 200 million deutschemarks worth to Iran. The question is: Why should not Krupp do all this through Turkey and will the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany put on sanctions and penalties? Suppose that one goes through a third country. Turkey may well be that third country, because the Turks in Eastern Turkey want to co-operate with the Iranians. The Iranians have given them a good long-term deal involving 1.6 million tonnes of much-needed diesel oil at a favourable rate to the Turkish economy—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have been very patient with the hon. Gentleman. In as kindly a way as I have been able, I have indicated my displeasure at the course he is adopting. I am giving him the last warning that, unless he concludes these remarks, I shall ask him to resume his seat. The amendment has not been moved. If he wishes to move it, he had better move it now.

Mr. Dalyell

There are important matters in relation to Italy, but I am a man to take a hint. The Italians have 2,000 nationals working in Iran. There are deep questions that arise on the matter of penalties for firms whose nationals are committed. I think it would be improper to go into the deep questions relating to the Japanese, who have their biggest single investment outside Japan and who have dispatched—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he did not intend to go into these matters, and then immediately did so. I have made it quite clear to the hon. Gentleman that either he should conclude his remarks or I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. He has not moved the amendment. If he wishes to do so, he must do it.

Mr. Dalyell

In the light of what you have said, Mr. Crawshaw, I thank you for your patience. I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 23, at end insert ' and shall lay down statutory penalties for offences committed in contravention of those prohibitions, restrictions or obligations '.

Mr. Parkinson

The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) moved his amendment and explained at some length that he felt it to be necessary because he thought the Bill did not include powers to lay down statutory penalties for offences committed in contravention of the prohibitions, restrictions and obligations set out in the Bill. I told him at an early stage that I am advised that the power he seeks is in the Bill and that it is possible for the things he wanted to see done to be done.

The rest of the hon. Gentleman's remarks centred on whether we could rely on our Community partners to be in a position to implement the sanctions resolution of 22 April. Could we be sure that we would not be putting ourselves at a disadvantage by subjecting ourselves to restrictions that others might not be subject to because they might not have the necessary statutory powers and so on? It has been made clear in the course of these debates that all member States have committed themselves to returning on 17 May with the necessary powers to implement the sanctions resolution of January which was vetoed by the Russians. We have made it clear that, unless that is the case, Her Majesty's Government will not go any further. We shall act only in concert with our allies.

What we are saying to the hon. Gentleman is "Yes, if we were to be the only people who were to have the powers and use them, we would be just as foolish as he says a country doing that would be." But we have no intention of doing that. The Foreign Ministers are meeting. They are committed to seeing whether they have been able to fulfil their pledge of 22 April and, if they have, will then decide to take identical measures.

The hon. Member then went on to the question of penalties, asking how we would know what the penalties were and when we would know what they were. The penalties will be introduced in the orders. This is an enabling Bill and orders will flow from the 1939 Act and from this Bill when it becomes an Act. In those orders the offences, the products embargoed, and the penalties for not observing those orders will be specified.

To deal with another of the arguments which the hon. Member uses over and over again, this is not the last opportunity on which we shall be able to discuss penalties imposed by orders made under this legislation. Orders will be laid and they will need to be discussed. The House will have the opportunity to discuss them. We have gone further and said that, even though the 1939 Act does not oblige the Government to come to the House for approval of orders laid, we shall find a parallel procedure to that envisaged under the Bill so that the House will have the opportunity to express its view about orders made not only under this legislation but under the 1939 Act.

I think that the hon. Member has had a very fair run. He has aired his concerns—they are obviously deeply felt because he keeps returning to them—and I hope that for his part he will feel that I have been able to satisfy his fears on this point.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

This appears to be a very early stage for the Minister to reply. Can he give us a clear indication that, if other countries and the United Kingdom decide to impose sanctions, the penalties will be uniform throughout all those countries which meet on Saturday? Can he assure us that there will not be a situation in which someone in this country faces stiffer penalties than someone in France?

Mr. Parkinson

This will be a matter for the national Governments. We shall have to justify to the House any penalties that we propose under any orders laid before the House. That is the position, and the House will make up its mind about whether the Government's proposals are sensible, making its assessment of the offence and the penalty that ought to be imposed. This should be our principal occupation.

Mr. James Lamond

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I am a little alarmed at the, early stage the Minister has chosen to reply to the debate. The hon. Gentleman has referred to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as having had a good run, but I remind him that there are other hon. Members here. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian is not alone. There are other hon. Members, including myself, who are hoping to catch the eye of the Chair. I might remind the Minister that I have not made a speech of any kind on this Bill so far.

Mr. Parkinson

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It would be difficult for a person, even with the imagination of the hon. Gentleman, to think of some obscure corner of the amendment which has not been trampled around pretty vigorously.

It is not my duty to decide who speaks after me or whether anyone does. If the hon. Gentleman had a real concern with which he was attempting to deal in the amendment, I hope that his mind is now at rest and that he feels that we can move on to other and more important parts of the Bill.

Mr. Joplingrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

2.15 am

Mr. Stuart Holland (Vauxhall)

The Minister's concern to assume that all the arguments on the clause have been aired is understandable. This clause is, in many respects, a key clause in the Bill. We have before us a Bill on sanctions—but sanctions with no teeth. It is strange that such a proposal should come before the House. But it is not at all strange that Conservative Members are concerned that it should be glossed over by Opposition Members.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Reading.

Mr. Holland

I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman is jealous of the attainment.

I wish to speak relatively briefly in opposing the amendment. It is desirable that there should not be penalties in the Bill relating to sanctions since it is desirable that the sanctions should not work. It is also desirable, I suspect, even from the Government side of the House, that the sanctions should be seen not to work. It appears clear from references by Ministers to concern about rising opinion in the United States—I witnessed television reports last month relating to Sanctions Day 100 and so-and-so and Sanctions Day 100 plus 1—that the Government are in two minds over the Bill. It may be no accident that the penalties are not specified. There would be good reason for that approach since it is highly improbable that the policy will work. If, in fact, the Bill contained the teeth of penalties, it would be likely to provoke significant reactions within Iran.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend has recently visited post-revolutionary Iran. Can he describe, from his first-hand knowledge, what are the likely reactions?

Mr. Holland

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point. I appreciate that the hour is late or early, according to one's choice. It may be germane to point out that relatively few hon. Members have been to Iran since the events concerned. I would be interested to know whether any hon. Member present in the Chamber has been to Iran during this period. Although it may be difficult for Conservative Members to assume that I intend to present a serious argument, I wish to relate the case on sanctions and penalties to the situation in Iran, as I perceived it, during a visit after last year's events.

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryan Godman Irvine)

Order. The hon. Gentleman will relate his arguments to the amendment.

Mr. Holland

Of course, Mr. Godman Irvine. In relating my remarks to the amendment, I also wish to relate them to information pertinent to the amendment. One of the bases of my argument is that the Government may be misleading the House in the sense that they are introducing a Bill that has no teeth because they do not intend the Bill to work. This is a central clause in the legislation and it is important for us to consider why an anomalous situation exists in the Bill.

Mr. Parkinson

It may help the hon. Gentleman if I point out that the Bill is the same as the Rhodesian sanctions Bill. No one ever accused that measure of lacking teeth or saw anything sinister in the way that it was drafted.

Mr. Holland

That must be one of the Minister's weaker arguments. Given the criticisms of the Conservative Party of Rhodesian sanctions, the fact that the Government have modelled the Bill on the measure that proposed sanctions against Rhodesia proves my point. They can hardly be serious about their proclaimed intention to make sanctions bite.

The fact that Rhodesian sanctions were busted with impunity by leading companies in this country tends to confirm that the Bill is a cosmetic exercise aimed essentially at placating American opinion rather than at having a direct effect on the hostages in Iran.

In considering whether sanctions will have teeth, it is important to take into account that the Iranian economy was already in significant crisis before the revolution. The sanctions that would really bite on the economy would be the withdrawal of the technology of multinational companies in Iran, the withdrawal of banking credit and other facilities for trade and the fact that components for the manufacture of goods in Iran could no longer be imported.

The staggering fact is that this is already the situation in Iran. By the middle of last year, virtually all the personnel concerned with foreign multinational capital had been withdrawn from Iran. The modern sector of the economy is not functioning efficiently. I saw one of the biggest paper pulp mills, a massive project that had ground to a halt because of the withdrawal of Canadian personnel and skilled labour, which, incredibly perhaps, was Korean. There is insufficient skilled labour in Iran to run the modern sector of the economy.

In practice, the international banking—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member observed many interesting things in Iran, but we want to hear about amendment No. 14.

Mr. Holland

My argument is germane to the amendment, because I cannot see on what basis the Government wish to introduce sanctions if they do not wish to introduce them with teeth. In trying to interpret for the House why that it is the case, it seems relevant to refer to the situation in Iran today.

Mr. Dalyell

It was when my hon. Friend gave the foreign affairs group of the PLP the advantage of his recent experience at the grass roots in Iran that many of us learnt about the folly of what we are about. The House has always prided itself on first-hand experience. There is always one hon. Member among the 630—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. We are trying to define whether what the hon. Gentleman is discussing is relevant to amendment No. 14. His experiences in Iran are doubtless of the utmost interest, but they are not particularly related to the amendment.

Mr. Holland

With respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, may I emphasise the essential point. This is a crucial clause in the Bill. It is bizarre that the Bill does not specify penalties.—[Interruption.] I am encouraged by that sort of sheer rowdy reaction from the Conservative Benches. It seems that Ministers have an interest in foreclosing a debate in which the British public can be seriously misled about the feasibility of these sanctions and of the international consequences—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. Whatever the British public may be interested in, the Chair is interested in keeping the debate relevant to the amendment. At the moment, I am not satisfied that that is happening.

Mr. Holland

It is interesting for me to sit through one of my first all-night sittings. There appears to be a tendency on both sides of the House—especially on the Benches opposite—to imagine that no hon. Member has anything better to do than to stand on his feet and talk for as long as possible.

If I were allowed to develop the argument—and, frankly, I have been interrupted at virtually every third sentence in the exposition which I have made so far—my speech might be briefer. I am trying to make serious points. I am a new Member of Parliament. If we cannot make essential arguments and be given the chance to develop them, certain hon. Members will not be encouraged to make the Floor of the House the main arena for discussion of issues of major importance.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend has been constantly interrupted by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), who made a distinguished, concise opening speech on the introduction of his Friday debate on the Brandt commission report. Surely he, of all Conservative Members, understands the relevance of first-hand experience in a developing country. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his colleagues—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. First-hand experience is obviously of the utmost importance, but so far as the Chair is concerned the speeches of hon. Members must be relevant to the amendment before the House.

Mr. Holland

Essentially, my argument is that the Government have not introduced sanctions with teeth. I am opposed to their doing so, partly because I think I understand their reasons for not doing so. They appreciate that a gesture has to be made to the American people and that sanctions must appear to work, but they recognise that sanctions are unlikely to work in practice. Introducing penalties on sanctions will bring the Government into ignominy, inasmuch as not only will there be anomalies but the Iranian economy is unlikely to suffer significantly from the sanctions.

I said previously that the modern, multinational sector of the Iranian economy is already on its knees. It cannot get components now. The banking sector has already been thrown into crisis by the fact that multinational banks have withdrawn their personnel, and most of the managers in large companies have already left the country. There is also major economic disruption at the factory level.

2.30 am

The outskirts of Tehran include a whole range of modern construction projects that are not being completed, sometimes referred to as the graveyard of the Shah's housing hopes. There is a main arterial road which runs for several tens of kilometres each way outside Tehran where multinational company after multinational company has already closed its facilities.

I assume that Ministers are aware that a massive number of peasants who previously came to the towns, and whose disruption and movement off the land was one of the dislocating factors in the Shah's agricultural reform, are returning to an under-employed rather than an over-employed agriculture, which is highly relevant to the question of unemployment.

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. It may well be relevant to unemployment, but is it relevant to amendment No. 14?

Mr. James Lamond

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I know that the hour is late, but I have observed that both you and your predecessor in the Chair have had some difficulty in keeping hon. Members in order. There has already been a suggestion from the Government side that the debate should be closured. May I put it to you that those of us who have been waiting to speak should not be punished because in the opinion of the Chair earlier speakers have strayed a little from the point?

The First Deputy Chairman

Mr. Holland.

Mr. Holland

Let us assume that the Government are serious and want sanctions to bite. If there is any point to the Bill, specific penalties should be proposed. It is very difficult to see either in the modern industrial sector of the economy or in banking and insurance how sanctions could bite. It is also difficult to see how there could be a major social disruption as a consequence of sanctions biting. The peasants who previously went to the town and constituted the industrial working class have been losing their jobs and have already started to go back to the land. The main outflow of those workers has already happened. The Government have even displayed posters about it around Tehran, trying to make the best of a bad thing—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment or the Bill.

Mr. Holland

With respect, Mr. Godman Irvine, I submit that it is crucially important to the Bill, because it is still an open question whether the Government intend to introduce effective sanctions. I congratulate Ministers on their Delphic exercise. Here we have a Bill on sanctions which has no explicit penalty. Are we to take it on assurance that a further statement will be introduced which will specify the penalties if and after we have agreed them with our European partners?

The arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) are highly relevant. If the Government intend that sanctions should bite and have teeth, it is important for the Government to realise that the teeth will be biting on very little in the State of Iran, and it is highly improbable that they will have any significant economic effect.

Mr. Dalyell

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, sotto voce, that they will be biting on British citizens. There must be no misunderstanding. If they are to work, they will also affect Iranian citizens. We come back to the purpose of this exercise in relation to the American hostages. From his first-hand experience in Iran, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) is making the case that what we are up to in relation to sanctions—and penalties in particular—will make it less likely that the hostages will get out of Iran.

Mr. Holland

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian for that intervention, because it raises two serious elements. It is unlikely that sanctions, even with penalties, will have a significant effect in dragging the Iranian economy further down. What has happened there is that the modern sector of the Iranian economy has collapsed and the country is back to the basic peasant rural-urban economy which previously obtained.

That economy is sustained by oil. Iran has the oil and can support the motor cars running around Tehran. The only area of Tehran which is in patent crisis is the traffic system. Apart from the specific cosmetic affluence which gives Tehran the appearance of a modern city, when one moves out of the capital one sees the working of the economy and realises that it can survive.

In that case, who will be hurt by the sanctions? If the Government are not serious in thinking that the sanctions will bite, then it is clear that the penalties will be inflicted upon us. They will be inflicted upon those employed in this country and upon our exports rather than upon the Iranians. In this context, the statement by the Government is unclear. It should be clarified to the extent that we should be told when these penalties will be introduced.

I cannot accept that the Government are serious about sanctions if we do not have the penalties specified. I would oppose those penalties partly because it seems to me that the Government may well be doing something intelligent, in the circumstances, with the Bill and with a clause without penalties. It is just conceivable that the Government have considered that the Bill will be interpreted in Washington as a gesture to the rising anger at the Iranian situation, to which it appears we are expecting the President and the governing establishment there to respond—in some measure automatically.

The Government may be hoping that the gesture will be perceived as such in Washington. But it will be perceived in Tehran for what it really is—a measure without teeth, a cosmetic measure directed mainly towards Washington. I believe that that would be one of the best things for the hostages. If anything is likely to endanger the future of the hostages and to sustain the Tehran regime, it will be a Bill with teeth which embodies precisely the kind of amendment that has been proposed and which I oppose.

The classic element of the revolutionary situation in Iran is that essentially it was not an economic revolution. It was primarily a political and social revolution. It was a revolution in which a certain class was deprived of the political power it had enjoyed under the previous oppressive regime. It is important to realise that to think that we can bring the new regime down by pulling the economic rug from underneath it is profoundly to misread the situation.

All that we will do—even though the modern sector of the Iranian economy is on its knees—is aggravate the situation. My reading of events when I was there, and from contacts with Iranians since I came back, is that it is highly arguable that the best gift which could be made to the more oppressive and ugly aspects of the new regime is a policy of tough sanctions with the type of penalty specified in the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Ayatollah is on record as saying that he welcomes the advantage to his Government that austerity will bring? The man in charge has said that he welcomes austerity.

Mr. Holland

That is relevant to the hostages question. My experience in Tehran and elsewhere in Iran makes plain that the only way in which the political, social, ideological and religious euphoria which swept the regime into power can be sustained is by covering up the basic failure of the regime to cope with the underlying economic and social problems. The basic aspirations of the Iranian people are to have a decent home, decent food and decent clothing at a reasonable price. The regime maintains its internal cohesion by response to external—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I still find it difficult to relate the argument to amendment No. 14 Unless the hon. Gentleman comes back to that, I shall have to take another view.

Mr. Holland

I have chosen to speak to the amendment and about whether the sanctions have teeth precisely to clarify why the Committee is being treated to this otherwise incomprehensible Bill. The clause refers to penalties. Sanctions without penalties are a type of placebo. I am trying to clarify why there is no specification. Perhaps the Government have the interests of the hostages at heart. Perhaps they simply want to make a gesture to the United States and do not wish to encourage internal opposition to the regime. If the sanctions policy succeeds, internal opposition to the external pressure of sanctions is bound to be brought to bear on the Khomeini regime. The pressures will be against an increasingly geriatric regime. Not every Ayatollah is of the age of this leadership. The pressure will be to take retribution on the hostages.

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend is saying that sanctions rejuvenate the undesirable elements of the regime. If that is the argument, it raises questions about sanctions and penalties.

Mr. Holland

My argument is based on the actual state of the Iranian economy rather than a fantasised view of the economy. The convention is that one criticises Ministers rather than officials. The argument must be directed against Ministers. Following the courtesy shown me by the Foreign Office and the Iranian embassy, I do not criticise Foreign Office officials. But the issue is crucial to the stability of Middle East relations and to peace itself. It is important that the Government come clean on the matter. We should know whether the Government expect the sanctions to work. If they expect them to work, what account have they taken of the consequences, such as those who support the regime putting pressure on it to retaliate against the hostages? If we do not—

2.45 am

Mr. Rhodes James

How does one retaliate against hostages?

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) will not follow that point. I was under the impression that he was on his last sentence.

Mr. Holland

Before I was so brusquely interrupted, I was on my last sentence. To give a monosyllabic answer to a monosyllabic question, one retaliates against hostages by killing them. It astonishes me that, when we are trying to debate serious issues, all that we hear from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) is a cheap Cambridge, Oxford or Sussex union debate. It may interest the House to know that the hon. Gentleman and I were, until recently, so-called colleagues at the university of Sussex. He is delaying the House. He is obstructing a serious debate. I do not know whether he is doing so to settle some old scores that I have long since forgotten. I wish that he would either contribute to the debate or not do so. If he is regarding the retaliation against the hostages as a joking matter, without considering their lives, it is—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. That is not within the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Holland

Thank you, Mr. Godman Irvine, for remaining me that the intervention of the hon. Member for Cambridge is not relevant to the amendment. However, the question remains, and I hope that the Minister will answer. Are the Government serious about the Bill? If they are serious, do they intend it to have penalties and powers? Do they intend it to bite? Is it a cosmetic exercise, or is it a real exercise? If it is a real exercise, what consequences are there then for the hostages who, regrettably, have been left substantially out of account by many hon. Members?

Mr. Joplingrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

The Minister's intervention some time ago proved that there is a real and substantial constitutional and parliamentary issue raised by the amendment and by the manner in which the Bill is drafted. The Minister stated that the penalties would be laid down in subordinate legislation under the Bill. It is, and would be admitted to be, a principle to which the House has adhered in legislation that the authority for penalties, if not laid down in a Bill—which they are normally, and should be—and authorised to be made by subordinate legislation, should be specific on the face of the Bill; and very often also the limits within which it could be exercised would be shown on the face of the Bill. I do not think that it would be disputed that that is the normal form, the general rule, followed in legislation.

The Minister pointed out that there is a precedent to the form of the Bill in the context of the Rhodesia sanctions. Indeed, he told us—and I accept it—that the actual wording with which we are dealing is a repetition of the wording in the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. If that is so, it still does not absolve us from considering in this Bill the constitutional issue that is raised by the provision of penalties by subordinate legislation.

I accept that under the 1939 Act it was no doubt possible to do just that. However, not only is that an Act which I do not think we can call in aid by way of precedent, but the Government have expressly dissociated themselves from any desire to use that Act in its full potentialities, and accept the duty to comply with the normal forms of legislative provision. That is to say, anything which they do under the 1939 Act they will bring before the House, as nearly as possible, as if it were being done under this or any normal Bill. That appears in column 919 of yesterday's debate.

I apply myself, therefore, disregarding the 1939 Act, to the wording of the clause. In respect of penalties, presumably, there are two aspects of the clause upon which the making of subordinate legislation could rely. The first is in subsection (3), which refers to: such provision for imposing prohibitions, restrictions or obligations as appears to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid. It would be difficult to read into those words the authorisation of subordinate legislation to create penalties. The second appeal which I think was made is to subsection (5), to which the amendment is attached. It states: An Order in council may make "— I shall come later to the words or authorise the making of "— and it continues: such incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions as appear to be expedient". I think I am correct in saying that in the normal interpretation of those words, which are indeed very common form, they are not commonly taken to authorise the subordinate legislation made under the principal Acts to impose and create penalties. Indeed, the ambit of incidental, supplemental and consequential provisions is commonly treated as very narrow.

I therefore put it to the Government that the natural meaning of the wording of the clause does not adequately cover the imposition of penalties by subordinate Orders in Council. If it be the case, as the Minister says, that the form of the clause has a precedent in the Southern Rhodesia Act, it is all the more necessary for us to consider very carefully, when we repeat it in this instance, what we are doing.

My first proposition is that the wording of the clause does not adequately cover, even by implication, the use of subordinate legislation to impose penalties. My second proposition is that, even if it did by implication authorise it, the making of penalties by subordinate legislation ought to be specifically authorised on the face of the principal Bill—penalties being so serious a matter to be dealt with by subordinate legislation.

My third point relates to the phrase in subsection (5) which I left out when I quoted it previously. It says that An Order in Council under this section may make or authorise the making of". That is to say, an Order in Council can say that a Department may make regulations. That is, as it were, a sub-delegation of the power of subordinate legislation. I assert that, if it is upon this subsection that the Government are to rely for the creation of penalties, it is monstrous that they should be relying upon a clause which permits sub-delegation of the relevant power. I hope that when the Minister responds again, as I hope he will, he will make it clear for the sake of a considerable principle that is at stake that the Government accept that penalties in general should not be made by subordinate legislation and that penalties should be applied and defined by principal legislation so that the House of Commons has the opportunity to consider them and, if it thinks fit, to amend them, both matters being either impracticable or limited in the context of subordinate legislation.

I should like the Government to acknowledge, first, that they accept in principle the undesirability of the imposing of penalties by subordinate legislation and, secondly, that where it is intended that penalties should exceptionally be imposed by subordinate legislation the power to do so in the principal Act should be specific and should appear on the face of the Bill, as the amendment provides.

Mr. Parkinson

I am advised that, provided that offences relate to the contracts described in clause 1(1) and (2) and that the creation of a criminal offence in that regard is necessary or expedient in consequence of breaches of international law by Iran, provision in the form of criminal offences may be made. The only restriction is on the ground of excessive jurisdiction. That is described in detail in clause 1(4). That subsection envisages that no provision so made shall render a person guilty of an offence in respect of anything done or omitted". In other words, it implies that if the creation of a criminal offence is necessary or expedient as a result of the breaches, the relevant power is included in the earlier provisions. I am advised that this is the way in which the power to introduce criminal sanctions has been introduced into other legislation. I am advised that additions of the sort that appear on the Order Paper would be unnecessary and add nothing to the Bill.

Mr. Powell

I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, which was helpful. If I understand him aright, he is stating that the power to impose penalties by subordinate legislation is deemed to be conferred not by subsection (5) but by subsections (1) and (3).

Mr. Parkinson

That is right.

Mr. Powell

The hon. Gentleman has removed the prospect that there could be sub-delegation under subsection (5) of the power to impose penalties.

I return to the more general point—namely, whether it is proper that the power to impose penalties by subordinate legislation should be implied and derivative and not specific upon the face of the Bill. I do not personally regard it—nor do I think that the House of Commons should regard it—as appropriate that a power by Order in Council to create penalties should be inferred from the terms "necessary or expedient" that occur in subsection (3).

I have no desire to over-labour the point, especially at this hour, but I do not think it will be disputed that the matter is one of genuine constitutional importance. This place is properly jealous of the power of imposing penalties and chary of allowing that power over the subject out of its own hands; for whenever that power is exercised by subordinate legislation control effectively passes—to a certain extent—from the House

3 am

Having listened to the Minister, I still believe it to be unsatisfactory that the Bill contains no explicit reference to a power to impose penalties. It is unfortunate if a precedent was set in the Rhodesia legislation; and even at this late hour, this occasion might well serve to mark our opinion that the precedent set by that Bill should not be followed. It is, therefore, appropriate—regardless of whether the words are strictly essential—that the amendment should be added to the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine.

Mr. Joplingrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

Division No. 299]	AYES	[3.01 am
Alexander, Richard	Hannam, John	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ancram, Michael	Hawksley, Warren	Renton, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack	Heddle, John	Rhodes James, Robert
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Henderson, Barry	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Banks, Robert	Hill, James	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Ridsdale, Julian
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Hooson, Tom	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Berry, Hon Anthony	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Best, Keith	Hurd, Hon Douglas	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Biggs-Davison, John	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Blackburn, John	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Shersby, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert	King, Rt Hon Tom	Silvester, Fred
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Knight, Mrs Jill	Sims, Roger
Braine, Sir Bernard	Lawrence, Ivan	Speed, Keith
Bright, Graham	Le Marchant, Spencer	Speller, Tony
Brinton, Tim	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Brotherton, Michael	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Sproat, lain
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Lyell, Nicholas	Squire, Robin
Buck, Antony	MacGregor, John	Stainton, Keith
Budgen, Nick	Major, John	Stanbrook, Ivor
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Marland, Paul	Stanley, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Steen, Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Mather, Carol	Stevens, Martin
Clegg, Sir Walter	Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Cockeram, Eric	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Colvin. Michael	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stradling Thomas, J.
Cope, John	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Crouch, David	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Tebbit, Norman
Dorrell, Stephen	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Thompson, Donald
Dover, Denshore	Moate, Roger	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Monro, Hector	Trippier, David
Durant, Tony	Montgomery, Fergus	Viggers, Peter
Dykes, Hugh	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Wakeham, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Murphy, Christopher	Waldegrave, Hon William
Elliott, Sir William	Myles, David	Walker, Bill (Perth S E Perthshire)
Fairgrieve, Russell	Needham, Richard	Waller, Gary
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Nelson, Anthony	Ward, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Newton, Tony	Watson, John
Forman, Nigel	Normanton, Tom	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Fox, Marcus	Onslow, Cranley	Wheeler, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Whitney, Raymond
Caret-Jones, Tristan	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Wickenden, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Goodlad, Alastair	Parkinson, Cecil	Wolfson, Mark
Gorst, John	Parris, Matthew	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Patten, John (Oxford)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Percival, Sir Ian	Mr. Peter Brooke and
Gummer, John Selwyn	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Mr. David Waddington.
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Rathbone, Tim
NOES
Dalyell, Tam	McNamara, Kevin
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Dixon, Donald	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and
Haynes, Frank	Soley, Clive	Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours.
Lamond, James	Welsh, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. James Lamond

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine.

The First Deputy Chairman

No. I am directed now to put the Question.

The Committee divided: Ayes 151, Noes 10.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 153.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Gummer, John Selwyn	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ancram, Michael	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Renton, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack	Hannam, John	Rhodes James, Robert
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Hawksley, Warren	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Banks, Robert	Heddle, John	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Henderson, Barry	Ridsdale, Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony	Hill, James	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Best, Keith	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Bevan, David Gilroy	Hooson, Tom	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Blackburn, John	Hurd, Hon Douglas	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shersby, Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Silvester, Fred
Braine, Sir Bernard	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Sims, Roger
Bright, Graham	King, Rt Hon Tom	Speed, Keith
Brinton, Tim	Knight, Mrs Jill	Speller, Tony
Brooke, Hon Peter	Lawrence, Ivan	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Brotherton, Michael	Le Marchant, Spencer	Sproat, lain
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Squire, Robin
Buck, Antony	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Stainton, Keith
Budgen, Nick	Lyell, Nicholas	Stanbrook, Ivor
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	MacGregor, John	Stanley, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Major, John	Steen, Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Marland, Paul	Stevens, Martin
Clegg, Sir Walter	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Cockeram, Eric	Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Colvin, Michael	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stradling Thomas, J.
Cope, John	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Crouch, David	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Tebbit, Norman
Dorrell, Stephen	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Thompson, Donald
Dover, Denshore	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Moate, Roger	Trippier, David
Durant, Tony	Monro, Hector	Viggers, Peter
Dykes, Hugh	Montgomery, Fergus	Waddington, David
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Wakeham, John
Elliott, Sir William	Murphy, Christopher	Waldegrave, Hon William
Fairgrieve, Russell	Myles, David	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Needham, Richard	Waller, Gary
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Nelson, Anthony	Ward, John
Forman, Nigel	Normanton, Tom	Watson, John
Fox, Marcus	Onslow, Cranley	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Wheeler, John
Freud, Clement	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Whitney, Raymond
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Wickenden, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan	Parkinson, Cecil	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Goodlad, Alastair	Parris, Matthew	Wolfson, Mark
Gorst, John	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Gow, Ian	Patten, John (Oxford)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Percival, Sir Ian	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Mr. Carol Mather and
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Rathbone, Tim	Mr. Tony Newton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. James Lamond

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. During the last debate, which lasted five minutes under two hours, the Government Whip, twice unsuccessfully and finally successfully sought to move the closure.

I shall not, of course, make any attempt to make the speech which I would have done if I had been called. That would be completely out of order. I simply say that I hope you will draw to the attention of the Government, if that is within your powers, the fact that although the hour is late—I appreciate the mounting irritation of Tory Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I have been in their position too often to fail to appreciate the irritation they feel at being kept here at this time. Nevertheless, the serious point I wish to make is that the fact that it is late—3.25 am—is not the fault of my hon. Friends. The Government seek to put legislation of this kind through in a very restricted—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order.

Mr. Lamond

It is rather difficult be cause of the interruptions. I assure the Committee that I am not trying to delay it. I am making a serious point which I think it should bear in mind. The legislation must be examined. I am sorry if it is 3.25 am. I wished to make what I thought was a sensible speech. Unfortunately, one of my hon. Friends took up more than half of the time allowed. I am not responsible for that, either, or for the lateness of the hour. Because of that, the Government Chief Whip thought it right to attempt to move the closure after an hour and 10 minutes and then after a further half an hour and finally, successfully, after less than two hours. I ask you, Mr. Godman Irvine, to bear in mind that Back Benchers on the Opposition side of the Committee have rights, which Tory Members may wish to exercise at some time in the future—when they will have my support to see that they get the opportunity to make relevant speeches at that time.

The First Deputy Chairman

There is nothing the hon. Gentleman has said which is a point of order for me. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair always takes into consideration all relevant matters.

Mr. Dalyell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. For the convenience of those who think that the House of Commons ought to perform its normal, traditional, scrutiny function—and as an aside I say "Heaven knows why the Government find it necessary to have 150 hon. Members here." Fifty would have done the job quite well. I can assure Conservative Members that there is no one hiding in the woodwork. These are serious matters. If there is to be proper scrutiny, it should be conducted correctly. May I know the criterion, Mr. Godman Irvine, on which you accept closure motions?

The First Deputy Chairman

Closure motions are a matter for the discretion of the Chair, which is exercised after taking into consideration all the relevant matters.

Mr. Dalyell

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 2, line 6, leave out or within the territorial waters of".

The First Deputy Chairman

With this we can also discuss amendment No. 23, in page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19.

Mr. Dalyell

The initial point which arises is how on earth one begins to police territorial waters. How does one make these sanctions effective, and, above all, how does one do it without getting into all of the dangers and difficulties of armed clash?

3.30 am

I do not doubt the Government's sincerity when they say that they eschew military action. The overwhelming number of Conservative Members, with a few exceptions—the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) is one of them—have said that on no account would they become involved in military action. But military action can start, albeit inadvertently, by incidents or circumstances that none can foresee. We have to ask—this is the nub of amendment No. 19—what arrangements are to be made for any kind of investigation into what ships are carrying and what they are not carrying. How will it be known that ships are from countries that are applying sanctions? The Indians, for example, are not applying sanctions. The Iranians have stipulated that the increasing amount of goods received from India will be carried in Indian ships. That illustrates, if I may comment in an aside, how this country is losing hard-won trade.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I, at Question Time, drew attention to an interview allegedly given by Mr. Harold Brown, the United States Defence Secretary, reported in The Guardian, to the Italian newspaper It Tempo in Rome. There is no doubt that the newspaper report is generally and probably completely accurate. Mr. Brown is reported as saying that, because the Americans wanted to concentrate more of their resources in South-East Asia, it was high time that NATO and Japan patrolled the Persian Gulf. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) might well use an expletive that I shall not repeat. One wonders whether people in positions of considerable power in the White House have learnt anything from the Bay of Pigs and the Gulf of Tongking.

We have to be careful about the whole issue of territorial waters, especially in the Gulf area. Heaven help us if the notion is seriously held that there should be patrols by navies of the NATO countries and Japan in that sensitive area. Not even our best friends in the Gulf among the emirs or the Saudis would consider such a notion sensible. One has to consider the smuggling aspect. We are asked to impose sanctions, yet I am told repeatedly that not only American but many other types of goods are getting into Iran. I do not wish to name people or get them into trouble, but the Financial Times of 25 April states that An official at the Committee for Middle East Trade (a section of the British Overseas Trade Board) points out that despite the crisis in US-Iranian relations, American goods had continued to reach Iran, partly through ports on the Arab shore of the Gulf. Dubai, in particular, might be used not only for circumventing a Western boycott, but for its more traditional role as an embarkation point for smuggling goods into Iran. Do Foreign Office Ministers deny that that is happening? Are we to take action against Dubai? If we do not, the whole exercise becomes absurd; and, if we do, we shall get into the most terrible problems of alienating oil producers and others on whom our manufacturing industry, rightly or wrongly, is virtually geared.

What are we on about? If the policy is to be effective, there must be some sort of Beira patrol, which would create unearthly problems and open a Pandora's box of strategic problems for this country.

This is a probing amendment, but these matters have to be answered. I see that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is the Prime Minister's PPS, is in the Chamber. I address my remarks to him in the hope that they will be relayed to Downing Street, which is the destination to which they should go. If we do not investigate goods going to third countries, whether Turkey, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Dubai or Bahrain, we shall have no hope of making the policy effective.

When the Conservatives were in Opposition, the hon. Member for Eastbourne made many speeches about the effectiveness in the outside world of what the House did. I remember the hon Gentleman's frequent references to Dr. Witteveen and the IMF, and, in friendliness, I return to him the fact that the policy in the Bill suffers from the same faults as he used to criticise in the Labour Government's legislation, namely, that, by definition, it will be ineffective in the real world.

If I have repeated the question in various forms it is because it has not yet been answered. We all recognise that this is a fiasco of a policy and cannot work. I intended to refer to earlier remarks of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I do not wish to take too long, to the detriment of my hon. Friends.

The amendments concern the shipping industry. One could shrug one's shoulders and say that sanctions will be neutralised by goods being shipped to other countries and ferried to Iran—there is plenty of surplus tonnage in the Gulf—but there will be a bias against those who have imposed sanctions and a favourable attitude towards those who have not done so.

We can be sure that our industrial competitors, not only in Western Europe but in Taiwan, the Philippines and South Korea, will certainly not impose sanctions or incur the odium that we shall attract for policies that are, by definition, ineffective and can hardly impress the Americans. The Americans will see through the style and nature of the political will involved in this policy. At the end of the day, the main beneficiary may be the Russian railway system, because many of the goods will be transported not by ship but by rail. These amendments also raise the issue of aircraft, and the main beneficiary will be Aeroflot.

If any hon. Member thinks that I am exaggerating, the facts are there to see. During the last month, Iran has signed agreements with East Berlin, Leipzig and Bucharest, and doubtless with other Eastern bloc countries. Although they may not want Russian and East European goods as a first preference, as soon as those goods start flowing they are unlikely to change back to other suppliers. We are not taking an ephemeral decision. It is not a decision that can be reversed once the hostages are returned. Long after they are returned we shall be paying the price for our actions; and our actions in supporting sanctions will not be forgotten.

I suspect that that is why one European country in particular is being extremely careful. That country is Italy. Let us examine the position of the Italians. Italy has about $3,000 million—about £1,300 million—tied up in construction projects in Iran.

The First Deputy Chairman

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can enlighten me as to how that can possibly relate to the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell

The main Italian effort is at the Barga Abbas harbour. That raises the question of territorial waters. I should explain that Italy's State-owned construction firm—

The First Deputy Chairman

Order. I fear that that does not satisfy me at the moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read out the amendment and then he will be able to relate it to his argument.

Mr. Dalyell

Amendment no. 19 reads: leave out ' or within the territorial waters of '. We are discussing the control of a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom or any other country or territory to which the Act extends. Since the Government have made great play of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) called the pari passu relationship with our partners, this is surely relevant to the position of the Italians. The Italians also have problems with their steel industry, but I shall not go into that.

The substantial point remains. Unless sanctions are effective—the amendment raises the question that by definition they cannot be effective—we are deeply injuring this country for ends that are illusory.

I wish to give my hon. Friends time to speak on this amendment, so I shall leave the matter there.

3.45 am

Mr. McNamara

I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in probing the Government's intentions. In line 2 on page 2 there is a reference to "acts or omissions". I am concerned with the omissions. Everything that the clause refers to in terms of contracts or the supply of goods and services is a positive action. An omission is a negative action, and I cannot understand why the word "omissions" is included.

This becomes of importance in line 6. Amendment no. 19 seeks to delete the words: or within the territorial waters of". What is an act of omission within the territorial waters of, the United Kingdom or a country or territory to which this Act extends "? Every other provision within the clause concerns a positive act—to enter into a contract, to continue a contract, to renew a contract, to supply goods and services. A failure to do so would seem to carry out the terms of what the Bill seeks to do within or without the territorial waters. Therefore, I fail to understand why that phrase is included.

From the phrase within the territorial waters of, the United Kingdom or a country or territory to which this Act extends we have to refer to clause 2(5) to see where the territorial waters extend. We find that the Act extends not only to the United Kingdom but to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and any colony and (to the extent of Her Majesty's jurisdiction therein) to any foreign country or territory in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction". It is important that we have from the Government Front Bench a definition of the foreign countries or territories in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction. There are people of malevolent mind who, carrying through the logic of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, might suggest that the words extend the principle of the Beira patrol to seizing parts of territories of independent nations, to supplement our effort in pursuing the policy of supporting embargoes and trying to ensure that no goods and services go into Iran.

Amendment No. 23 seeks to omit paragraph (c) of clause 1(4). Clause 1(4) limits liability under the Bill for acts committed within or without United Kingdom territorial waters or otherwise to a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies…a body incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the United Kingdom. or a person who is in control of a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom or any other country or territory to which this Act extends". But what if we have a foreign national within the areas to which the Bill refers who is not in control of a ship or an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom and who is still seeking to obey the provisions of the Bill? Does that mean that we give carte blanche to third parties who are not United Kingdom citizens to carry out those acts which, if such persons were citizens of the United Kingdom, would be illegal? Are they being given carte blanche because they do not owe allegiance to the Queen or are not in control of a ship or an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom?

The phrasing of the Bill in this particular provision is of importance because of the degree of confusion and vagueness which appears at this point. I would have thought that their Lordships would be seized of this problem and seek to move an amendment. I would not be at all surprised if we saw some member of the judiciary seizing upon the patent unfairness of such a provision.

If the legislation is to go beyond the line of argument that I have advanced, I think that we should look carefully at the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. The practical application of these specific provisions—even if they can be put into operation—will create many problems. Those hon. Members who were in the Gulf recently were able to talk to many people concerned with the politics, the trade and the commerce of that area.

One thing was certain, and that was that none of the traders in that area intended to regard themselves as bound by any legislation designed by the West to impose sanctions, whether within or without their territorial waters or ours.

What if a supplier of goods and services in the United Kingdom received an order from a firm acting in the normal course of wholesale business in one of the Gulf areas and supplied the goods ordered? If the goods are supplied in the normal course of business and are transhipped to Iran—having already been conveyed to the wholesaler in a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom—what is the degree of liability of the supplier of goods and services, or of the owner of the aircraft or ship?

We cannot on this occasion turn a blind eye—or perhaps we can and repeat the fiasco of the oil shipments to Rhodesia—to goods being transhipped to ports adjacent to Iran, for onward delivery to that country. If we send goods to Dubai, Bahrain or somewhere else in the Emirates, they are as likely to go to Saudi Arabia, further east in the Gulf area, or across the sea to Iran. The technicalities of policing such activity in relation to transhipment documents and bills of lading at this end of the operation would be sufficiently difficult to render the situation somewhat farcical.

If there is to be an effective economic embargo and if the powers in the Bill are to be used, it is not sufficient for action to be taken in concert merely with the United States of America, or even with other members of the EEC. It must have the active co-operation of the other trading partners of the country against which the sanctions are taken. In particular, it must have the co-operation of the adjacent countries.

A ridiculous position could arise. A person could be in control of a ship registered in the United Kingdom and take goods to an adjacent country with the knowledge—perhaps not written or contractual—that the goods will be shipped to Iran. That person will not be guilty of an offence, but if his ship takes goods direct to Iran he will be guilty. If suppliers of goods and services with a degree of moral rectitude which was not shown in the Rhodesian situation decide that it is against the spirit of the legislation to supply goods and services, they will sit back and see Formosa, Korea and other countries supply the goods and services.

How do we patrol our territorial waters or the waters of any country over which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction? The immediate reaction must be that we should have naval or aerial vigilance. We all know the extent to which we are stretched in trying to preserve our fisheries limits and we know the difficulties involved in trying to enforce such control. We know of the strains that such action would put on our NATO and other commitments.

I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy is in the Chamber. Perhaps he will explain the effectiveness of a blockade to try to enforce the control of ships and aircraft.

If one has been to the Straits of Hormuz, one will have had drawn forcibly to one's attention the large amount of commerce and trade that uses that narrow stretch of water, none of which necessarily goes to Iran but much of which goes to the other Gulf States and the Saudis. How do we enforce control there? How can it be done when the country against which sanctions are imposed, with large air and naval forces supplied by Britain and the United States, controls the northern shore of that narrow strip of water? That makes a laughing stock of the provisions.

The Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have said that we shall eschew military action. I hope that the Government also take that attitude.

Mr. Dalyell

Would not the greatest resentment be caused if, for example, ships were to be searched on their way to Bahrain and Kuwait and not to an Iranian port? Is it not easy to say that the goods are destined for Kuwait or Bahrain? Surely, any sort of effective sanctions would create enormous trouble for our friends on the southern shore of the Gulf.

4 am

Mr. McNamara

I am not even certain that the word "effective" is right in that context. As I indicated earlier, one of the conclusions expressed by several distinguished holders of high office in Gulf States was that at the Islamic conference the United States would be arraigned, as the Russians were arraigned for the invasion of Afghanistan. That is unfair, but it will happen. If we, or anyone else, were involved in a blackade or in the imposition of sanctions in that area, we would be surrogate in that invasion of Islamic territory. That attitude would cause tremendous confusion.

The drafting of the provision needs a more careful examination by the Government. Perhaps in another place it will be found easier and more necessary to introduce some corrections to the clause. In terms of one rule for British citizens and another for foreigners, the provisions are most unfair.

Mr. Dalyell

Coming from a fishing community, my hon. Friend knows something about policing operations and the definitions of territorial waters. I know little about that because my constituency is next to the North Sea oil rigs. Any operation trying to investigate what ships are carrying what goods is so fantastically unreal that it should not be attempted. But, if it is not attempted, what on earth are the Bill and the policy about?

Mr. McNamara

I agree with my hon. Friend. He made the point very strongly I shall take the Committee to the Straits of Hormuz and ask it to imagine a freighter loaded with as many as 30 or 40 containers on the deck. They are sealed, and to examine them would cause a tremendous amount of trouble. It would be wrong to think that one could look at the bills of lading or other shipping documents to see what was inside the containers. We have only to consider the way in which arms have arrived in the Republic of Ireland to realise that documents tell lies as easily as they tell the truth.

The clause would operate unfairly against British nationals as opposed to third parties. It has the strange word "omissions" when we are looking for positive acts. I cannot help feeling that that is a Catch-22 phrase, of which the House would not approve. The Committee must consider the provisions more carefully. It is too much, at this hour of the morning, to ask for manuscript amendments to be accepted—even if we had the ability, at this hour, to draft them. It creates an unfortunate precedent, and we shall listen carefully to what the Minister—

Mr. Dalyell

We have all the haste of having Report and Third Reading spatchcocked into one day, which was less than necessary, because the Government must have known at least two weeks ago—if not a good deal earlier—that they were proposing to introduce sanctions. The Government are using the procedure of the House to their own advantage. If the Whips say "So what", let them understand that people who use Parliament like this must expect themselves to be inconvenienced by certain others who feel very strongly about the policy which they are putting forward.

Mr. McNamara

As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wise words of warning to the Government.

I return to the point that I was making. As the Bill is loosely drafted, one looks for some correction, and certainly some careful explanation, of the precise meaning of the situation. But, more than that, the Government should be warned of the folly of seeking to implement this type of policy given the circumstances within the Gulf and within that sensitive area. Even at this late stage, they should think again about whether the provisions which they are seeking to enact, and which we are seeking to amend and somewhat improve, are necessary and whether we should be trying other methods which would present less danger to our economy.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Given my hon. Friend's great experience of fishing and the fishing industry, the sea routes and sea traffic, will he comment on the suggestion which has been made by some commentators in Iran that the Iranian navy may scuttle a number of merchant vessels in the Straits to which he referred? Will he comment on the implication which the scuttling of a number of commercial vessels in those Straits might have on the transport of oil from the Middle East and also on the transport of a number of other products which come through those Straits and end up in the markets of Europe?

Mr. McNamara

I think that would create problems in terms of how the Bill was put into operation. If the amendments were passed, in terms of within and without the territorial waters it would create a number of problems each way. Certainly, with regard to the patrolling of the area and the sea lanes in a strip of water which is a bit wider than the English Channel at its narrowest, it would seem that the scuttling of vessels, while creating problems, would not present insuperable problems and that the Royal Omani navy, on whose ships I was privileged to sail, would adequately be able to create other lanes because of the depth of water which exists. However, I am not at all certain whether that would be possible or effective.

I would have thought that a greater threat to the Straits from the Iranian side would be the stationing of mobile artillery batteries along the coast, as well as the use of Iran's own navy to blockade, stop and search. If the Iranians were to do that in that part of the Straits which is international waters, that would create all sorts of other problems.

Similarly, there is the problem of laying mines. Again, that could be seen to be directed not only at Iran but also at the other countries of the Gulf, which must use the Straits as a way of entrance to their own territorial areas and ports. A policy of the West which resulted in any sort of reaction such as that from Iran would put at serious risk the large oil supplies which come through the Straits to the Canal or round the Cape to the West.

I do not believe that a lot of these policies have been carefully thought out. In going through with a policy such as this and in passing the Bill, I wonder what changes in policy or decisions are likely to be made in the United States, about which our own Foreign Secretary will not be informed and which he may learn from the eight o'clock news the following morning.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the future of oil supplies to Western Europe and to the democracies of the Western world may be dependent on the activities of perhaps a single British monitoring ship that may be sent to the area to monitor the passage of goods and transport through the Straits? If it were to make a mild mistake and upset the Iranian authorities, does my hon. Friend agree that it could precipitate an action that would have an amazing, if not incredible, effect on the economy of the Western world? Is that what he is suggesting?

Mr. McNamara

That is not what I am suggesting. I am not making the scenario as horrid as that. I do not think that one ship would be sent on such a task. Even Her Majesty's Government have sufficient sense not to do that. Secondly, it would not happen in the way that my hon. Friend has postulated. Instead, there would be a tightening of the screw. There would be an increase of prices and a cutting down of production. In that way, the oil-producing States would still get their revenue or income. However, they would be turning the screw a little further and a little tighter upon Western industries and economies.

I think that the States learnt from the events of the Yom Kippur war and the seven days' war how to use the oil weapon. The weapon would be used far more subtly. That is what has been done over the past 10 years. Its use has been much more subtle than direct brute force. If there were some action on the Straits which developed into a great international incident, the alliance that has been made by the Islamic States and the attitude to the American incursion into Tehran would be such as to escalate the scale of the problem.

Mr. Dalyell

If there were that sort of pressure, is it not correct to say that many of the Gulf States might exercise their undoubted option of deciding that the best thing that they could do with their oil would be to keep it in the ground? That is fairly widely said, and it has been written about by Valerie Yorke and others. It seems to some of us to be a serious option. My hon. Friend has visited the area, and perhaps he will confirm that view.

Mr. McNamara

That is one of the options. Over the past few years there has been a cutting back in production. The Gulf States consider their oil to be a major but diminishing resource that they want to harbour and to use to their best advantage. They have realised that a greater income of petrodollars is not such a great asset unless it can be used sensibly and not squandered. Therefore, they are cutting back production. It is one of the possibilities that has to be taken into consideration.

The control of territorial waters and actions by ships and aircraft is positively fraught with danger. It has to be considered with a great degree of care. There is only one Gulf State which has the ability not to use the Straits—namely, the Sultanate of Oman, which can tranship directly into the Indian Ocean.

I hope that when the Minister replies he will try to set our minds at rest.

4.15 am

Mr. Hurd

This has been a slightly curious debate. The hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have dealt with a series of scenarios affecting the territorial waters of the Gulf. They have dealt with Italian steelworks, the reactions of Gulf States, and so on. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been led into a slightly fantastic world. His imagination has fed those alarming scenarios.

Mr. Campbell-Savours

Is the Minister saying that that scenario is inconceivable?

Mr. Hurd

I would say that it is as improbable as his earlier idea that a firm in his constituency, which sells goods to Iraq, would suffer as a result of a Bill that affects Iran. The two countries are on the worst possible terms. There has been some fantasising. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman. However, the amendment concerns the United Kingdom's territorial waters. It is not concerned with the territorial waters of the Gulf. Much of the discussion has ranged rather wide. If there is a Division, hon. Members should vote on the amendment.

Once again, the hon. Member for West Lothian produced arguments against the whole policy. He would have used those same arguments if he had been called to speak on Second Reading. His points have been answered several times. I am sure that he will forgive me if I do not repeat them. There will be an opportunity to rehearse those arguments—one hopes, in the new form—on Third Reading. I shall not complain that he has used this opportunity to repeat his general charge.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central put together a series of reasonable legal questions. I shall try to deal with some of those questions now. I shall explain later why some of his other questions should probably be left. He made a reasonable point about "omissions". I am advised that if a British captain of a British ship failed to prevent his ship from proceeding to Iran, in defiance of an order approved by the House, he might be guilty of an act of omission under the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke about transhipment. That is a relevant point. He asked about the liability of a ship-owner who became involved in such a transaction. I understand that the owners and captain of a British ship would become liable in such transactions, even if they were outside United Kingdom territorial waters. That is the normal definition of the jurisdiction of the House. Any ship inside United Kingdom ports or territorial waters would be liable. I understand that that is a fully precedented definition of the scope of British jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is distinguished from, and narrower than, the claims made by the United States of America.

Answers to such questions will depend not so much on the enactment of the Bill as on the nature of the order that is later submitted. They will depend on the choice of powers that the House approves, the nature of the transaction and, if necessary, the interpretation of that transaction in our courts.

These amendments have not been the subject of much discussion during the debate. Amendment No. 19 would make it impossible for a criminal offence to apply to acts done within the United Kingdom's territorial waters. In fact, this would be anomalous, because the Continental Shelf Act 1964 would continue, even if the words referred to here were left out, to make it possible for acts done on the United Kingdom continental shelf to constitute criminal offences.

As I have made clear, there is no objection under customary international law to a coastal State creating criminal offences relating to acts occurring in its territorial waters.

The purpose of amendment No. 23 would be to exclude the possibility of creating criminal offences applicable to a person in control of a United Kingdom registered ship or aircraft. Again, there is no international law objection to a State assuming criminal jurisdiction over ships or aircraft registered in its territory. Not to impose such penalties and not to define the Bill in this way would certainly create a large gap in what we are trying to do.

For these reasons, I recommend the Committee not to accept the two amendments.

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)

Will my hon. Friend deal with the important point of the hypothetical foreigner resident here and operating from this country vessels sailing under a foreign flag?

Mr. Hurd

I am reluctant to give an answer off the cuff on that question, but I see its importance and I should like to look into the matter and let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Dalyell

The first Committee on which I ever served was that which considered the Continental Shelf Bill in 1964. That this legislation should be invoked in exactly this context—it was certainly designed for very different reasons—just shows how we can pass legislation with a whole set of purposes in mind which can be very far removed from the set of purposes for which it is ultimately used.

The Minister said that it was a question of the nature of the order and the interpretation of the transaction in our courts. Once again, this reveals what a pig in a poke the House looks like assenting to. I simply register the fact that I think that the position is profoundly unsatisfactory.

Yes, it was a probing amendment. Yes, certain issues to do with the waters of the Persian Gulf were raised, because there was a very great difficulty—

Mr. McNamara

My hon. Friend will recall that the Minister spoke about two things. He spoke about a transhipment, and he said that a person would be guilty. He did not examine the question whether increases in purchases of goods from one country to another would be taken evidentially to mean that there would be a breach of a sanction order if there were increases in the supply of goods to a particular port.

Secondly, the wording of subsection (4) is that the Bill extends to territorial waters of the United Kingdom or a country or territory to which this Act extends". The definition in clause 2(5) states: This Act extends to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and any colony and (to the extent of Her Majesty's jurisdiction therein) to any foreign country or territory in which for the time being Her Majesty has jurisdiction. Which foreign countries are we likely to be referring to and what sort of catch-all provision is this, in extending, in some sort of neo-imperialistic way, the jurisdiction of Her Majesty?

Mr. Dalyell

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I recollect that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), during the debate on Lords reform and then on subsequent occasions,—dare I mention it?—in the whole devolution argument, explained how it was that the House of Commons was performing its scrutiny function, its function of self-education. I simply reply to my hon. Friend that he has yet again raised a question of substance and something that has not been properly thought about.

The function of this Chamber is, above all, to look hard at this kind of controversial, possibly quickly prepared, legislation that is put before us. As soon as we begin to scrutinise it, it is like turning up a stone from under which all sorts of animals come out. It may not have been suspected that those animals were there in the first place, but that is the whole point of what I might call a self-destruction process.

The right hon. Member for Down, South mentioned how on previous occastions hon. Members had come in during the long, protracted proceeding, had got something of the atmosphere of the debate and had gone out shaking their heads and saying perhaps that there was a smell of death about the legislation.

I am not pretending that there is a smell of death about this legislation, because the Prime Minister is too determined and her majority is too large. But I should like to think that, even if we have taken a long time about it—and will go on—quite a number of Members of Parliament on the Government side of the Chamber, who perhaps have been here a relatively short time, will by their very instinct have registered that the measure being put forward has all sorts of consequences that have not been fully discussed—all sorts of side effects, and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) embodied one—and which have not hitherto been thought about.

We are indeed on a perilous course. There will be tears and grief at the end of this road. I do not say that in a party political way; I say it out of experience-One senses that when legislation is fraught with difficulty and Governments try to present it as more simple than it is, they get into trouble. I am no soothsayer, but I can imagine that these points, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and I raised earlier, will time and again come up—I will not say to haunt—to create difficulty, and we shall get deeper and deeper into the morass of alienation of most of the Arab world.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been very patient and his manners are impeccable, but he knits his brow and shakes his head. Some of us think that this is the path along which we are going. We are discussing the alienation of a vast section of our most important market and of our oil supplies. Unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to answer some of the specific issues that have been raised, I propose to divide the Committee on this amendment.

Dr, Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead)

The point that I want to make is simple. What sanctions can be applied to a foreigner, resident in this country, who is operating under a foreign flag? It is clear that a ship can be stopped in territorial waters, but what sanctions can be applied to the foreigner? Can he be deported? Can his residence be restricted? What practical steps can Her Majesty's Government take against a foreigner who, as my hon. Friend suggested, is operating outside territorial waters under a flag which is not registered in this country?

Mr. Hurd

Perhaps I may reply briefly to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn). As he will know from previous discussion, no specific penalties are included in the Bill. We have already traversed this point in the course of the night. The Committee, by a vote, I think, accepted that it was not necessary to provide for that because the penalties would be included, measure by measure, in the orders that might come before the House if the Bill became law. Therefore, it is not possible to be specific about penalties because the Bill is not specific about them. But the kind of person to whom my hon. Friend referred would be within the United Kingdom, under the jurisdiction of the British courts, and thus liable to whatever penalties were imposed by order, approved by the House. That would be the case, even if that foreigner were operating a ship or an airliner registered under a foreign flag.

4.30 am

Mr. Dalyell

The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) has done the Committee a favour by asking that question. I listened carefully to the Minister's answer, which raises the important question of extradition. How on earth can one get the kind of extradition order necessary to enforce this? These people have been evading sanctions for the last 4,000 years. The hon. Member rightly raised the case of those who have international passports, based in the Levant or elsewhere—

Mr. Hard

They may be based here.

Mr. Dalyell

The Minister is showing his first signs of petulance, and I do not blame him for that. He says that they may be based here, but they may not be United Kingdom nationals.

Dr. Glyn

I have been reading the small print, and it seems that what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said covers that case. If a person is resident here, he can have the same penalties imposed on him by the courts as a British subject.

Mr. Dalyell

We are getting into more anomalies. British residents are subject to penalties, whereas those penalties do not extend to those who are not British residents or of British nationality but who are evading the sanctions. This is most undesirable. It can be further extended to companies and where they are registered. Are British companies at a disadvantage compared with those that are not registered in Britain?

I realise the Government Whips' problems, but, to be fair, I said earlier that the length of the proceedings would depend on what happened. I am not complaining about the ability or courtesy of the ministerial replies. Both Ministers have treated the Committee with the utmost courtesy, and I am not criticising them but by the very nature of this matter we are discovering as we probe the subject in more detail that more and more questions emerge which have not been properly discussed. The Minister of State shakes his head, but it is true. There are more questions now, and by the end of the day even more will appear.

Dr. Glyn

There are difficulties under the 1948 Act. I am not clear whether the foreign resident would be caught under the legislation, because the Bill says in page 2, line 8: unless at the time of the act or omission that person is—(a) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". I am not clear under which provision he would be caught.

Mr. Dalyell

The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead raises a substantial issue. He spoke of the difficulties of the 1948 Act. Earlier, the problem was raised in terms of the 1939 Act. But how does what we are discussing fit in with section 3 of the 1939 Act? It reads: If any goods are imported, exported, carried coastwise or shipped as ships' stores in contravention either of an order under this Act or of the law relating to trading with the enemy "— how one defines "the enemy" is open to question; and then (b)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Let us get on."] The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead has raised an important point and this might be the last time we can go into these things in depth. He has every right to raise them. Then (b): are brought to any quay or other place, or waterborne, for the purpose of being exported or of being so carried or shipped in contravention either of an order under this Act or of the law relating to trading with the enemy, those goods shall be deemed to be prohibited goods and shall be forfeited; and the exporter of the goods or his agent, or the shipper of the goods, shall be liable, in addition to any other penalty under the enactments relating to customs, to a customs penalty of five hundred pounds. Nobody in his right mind these days would think that a figure of £500 was suitable. Surely we should be thinking about updating the figures in the 1939 Act.

I must say to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead: If any such order as aforesaid prohibits the exportation of any goods unless consigned to a particular place or person, and such goods so consigned are delivered otherwise than to that place or person, as the case may be, the vessel in which the goods were exported shall be deemed to have been used in the conveyance of prohibited goods. I hope I have not got the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead into trouble. I see that the Chief Whip is now having words with him.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

The hon. Gentleman is just being leaned upon. He is being given a little guidance.

Mr. Dalyell

Guidance is a very sore subject on this side of the Committee. There are all sorts of precedents in the industrial legislation on that aspect.

The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead has raised a most important issue. How is it intermeshed with section 3(3) of the 1939 Act: If any goods are imported, exported or shipped as ships' stores, or are brought to any quay or other place, or waterborne, for the purpose of being exported or of being so carried or shipped, an officer of Customs and Excise may require any person possessing or having control of the goods to furnish proof that the importation, exportation or carriage coastwise of the goods or the shipment of the goods as ships' stores, as the case may be, is not unlawful by virtue either of an order under this Act or of the law relating to trading with the enemy; and if such proof is not furnished to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise"? This is the precedental law, and the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) need not taunt his hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead. His hon. Friend is acting as a proper parliamentarian should.

Mr. Hurd

The fact is that half an hour ago my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) raised a reasonable and pertinent question which I did my best to answer. My hon. Friend said he was satisfied with the answer, but since then the hon. Member for West Lothian has done nothing but read out great chunks of the 1939 Act, which does not seem to be relevant to the Bill or to his amendment.

Mr. McNamara

Before my hon Friend returns to the 1939 Act, could I give him a scenario?

The Chairman (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

I think that I will intervene, to say that we should stick to this measure. We are not debating the 1939 Act at all.

Mr. McNamara

I assure you, Mr. Weatherill, that I had no intention of debating the 1939 Act. I wanted to deal with the question of a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies or a body incorporated under the law. Legally, such a person, or body, could tranship out of the country a sum of money to a Liechtenstein company, which could use the money to buy goods in the United Kingdom. The goods could be sold to another Liechtenstein company, which takes a booking on a British ship, which takes the goods to somewhere in the Gulf, where they are transhipped to a Liberian ship. Every one of those actions would be legal. It would be difficult to say that there was anything illegal. The profits accrue. They go from one Liechtenstein company to another. My hon. Friend will recall that there are more companies in Liechtenstein than citizens. Then the money is transhipped back to the United Kingdom. Everything has been done legally and with a complete evasion of sanctions.

Mr. Dalyell

This is precisely the kind of difficulty. Although I would have preferred to substitute a more likely company than a Liechtenstein company, this is a real scenario. My hon. Friend took it as an example, but it is a good example of the morass we sink into once we go down a road like this. The Minister of State said that we should not be discussing the 1939 Act. We are dealing here with precedental law—[Interruption.] If I am tempted, I shall go in detail into the British Nationality Act 1948, which is the subject of line 11, page 2, of the Bill.

Once one gets involved in such complex legislation without having properly thought it out, once one starts passing laws because of great urgency, one gets into all sorts of unsuspected difficulties. Properly digested legislation has to be better throughout. This Bill is spatchcocked together with the greatest of haste to meet what the Government think is a purely temporary situation. I do not think that it will be so temporary. If we do this, the hostages will be there for half a lifetime. The iniquity of it all is that it does not have a chance of succeeding in attaining its objective. It is the un-workability and unreality of it all that strikes one.

While I give the Government Back Benchers credit for their good nature there is a deeply serious point here. We are not sent to the House of Commons to assent to legislation which, in our heart of hearts, we know will not work. When I say "we", I am arrogant enough to suggest that it includes not only the Labour Benches but a substantial number of Government supporters and, dare I say it, I suspect, a great many members of the Government Front Bench.

At least one thing has been learnt from the whole devolution saga and the attempt to reform the Lords. I sat through many hours as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Dick Crossman when he was trying to bring in Lords reform. He and the noble Lord the present Foreign Secretary and one or two others, thought that they had a watertight Bill.

4.45 am

The Chairman

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He may be right in what he says, but it is a Third Reading point that has nothing to do with territorial waters.

Mr. Dalyell

It is connected with the intervention made by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead. I shall not abuse the Chair over this matter, but it has to be brought home that deep feelings exist. One gets into precisely this type of problem when people bring forward

Division No. 301]	AYES	[4.46 am
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Dalyell, Tam	Soley, Clive	Mr. Kevin McNamara and
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Welsh, Michael	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
Haynes, Frank

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Hawksley, Warren	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ancram, Michael	Heddle, John	Renton, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack	Henderson, Barry	Rhodes James, Robert
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Hill, James	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Banks, Robert	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Hooson, Tom	Ridsdale, Julian
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Berry, Hon Anthony	Hurd, Hon Douglas	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Best, Keith	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Biggs-Davison, John	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Blackburn, John	King, Rt Hon Tom	Shersby, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Knight, Mrs Jill	Silvester, Fred
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Lawrence, Ivan	Sims, Roger
Braine, Sir Bernard	Le Marchant, Spencer	Speed, Keith
Bright, Graham	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Speller, Tony
Brinton, Tim	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Brotherton, Michael	Lyell, Nicholas	Sproat, lain
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	MacGregor, John	Squire, Robin
Buck, Antony	Major, John	Stainton, Keith
Budgen, Nick	Marland, Paul	Stanbrook, Ivor
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Stanley, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Mather, Carol	Steen, Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stevens, Martin
Clegg, Sir Walter	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Cockeram, Eric	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Colvin, Michael	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Cope, John	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Crouch, David	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Tebbit, Norman
Dorrell, Stephen	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Dover, Denshore	Moate, Roger	Thompson, Donald
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Monro, Hector	Thorne, Neil (liford South)
Durant, Tony	Montgomery, Fergus	Trippier, David
Dykes, Hugh	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Viggers, Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Murphy, Christopher	Waddington, David
Elliott, Sir William	Myles, David	Wakeham, John
Fairgrieve, Russell	Needham, Richard	Waldegrave, Hon William
Forman, Nigel	Nelson, Anthony	Waller, Gary
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Newton, Tony	Ward, John
Freud, Clement	Normanton, Tom	Watson, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Onslow, Cranley	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Wheeler, John
Goodlad, Alastair	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Whitney, Raymond
Gorst, John	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Wickenden, Keith
Gow, Ian	Parkinson, Cecil	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Parris, Matthew	Wolfson, Mark
Griffiths. Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Patten, John (Oxford)
Gummer, John Selwyn	Percival, Sir Ian	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Mr. Peter Brooke and
Hampson, Dr Keith	Rathbone, Tim	Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
Hannam, John

Question accordingly negatived.

measures in which they do not really believe for purely short-term reasons. I shall not try your patience further, Mr. Weatherill. Unless the Minister of State wishes to reply, I propose to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 150.

Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19.—[Mr. Dalyell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 302]	AYES	[4.57 am
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Haynes, Frank	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Dalyell, Tam	Soley, Clive	Mr. Kevin McNamara and
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Welsh, Michael	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Hawksley, Warren	Pees-Davies, W. R.
Ancram, Michael	Heddle, John	Benton, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack	Henderson, Barry	Rhodes James, Robert
Atkins Robert (Preston North)	Hill, James	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Banks, Robert	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Hooson, Tom	Ridsdale, Julian
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Berry, Hon Anthony	Hurd, Hon Douglas	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Best, Keith	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Biggs-Davison, John	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Blackburn, John	King, Rt Hon Tom	Shersby, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Knight, Mrs Jill	Silvester, Fred
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Lawrence, Ivan	Sims, Roger
Braine, Sir Bernard	Le Marchant, Spencer	Speed, Keith
Bright, Graham	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Speller, Tony
Brinton, Tim	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Brotherton, Michael	Lyell, Nicholas	Sproat, lain
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	MacGregor, John	Squire, Robin
Buck, Antony	Major, John	Stainton, Keith
Budgen, Nick	Marland, Paul	Stanbrook, Ivor
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Stanley, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Mather, Carol	Steen, Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stevens, Martin
Clegg, Sir Walter	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Cockeram, Eric	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Colvin, Michael	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Cope, John	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Crouch, David	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Tebbit, Norman
Dorrell, Stephen	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Dover, Denshore	Moate, Roger	Thompson, Donald
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Monro, Hector	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Durant, Tony	Montgomery, Fergus	Trippier, David
Dykes, Hugh	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Viggers, Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Murphy, Christopher	Waddington, David
Elliott, Sir William	Myles, David	Wakeham, John
Fairgrieve, Russell	Needham, Richard	Waldegrave, Hon William
Forman, Nigel	Nelson, Anthony	Waller, Gary
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Newton, Tony	Ward, John
Freud, Clement	Normanton, Tom	Watson, John
Garel-Jones Tristan	Onslow, Cranley	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Wheeler, John
Goodlad, Alastair	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Whitney, Raymond
Gorst, John	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Wickenden, Keith
Gow, Ian	Parkinson, Cecil	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Gower, Sir Raymond	Parris, Matthew	Wolfson, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Patten, John (Oxford)
Gummer, John Selwyn	Percival, Sir Ian	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and
Hampson, Dr Keith	Rathbone, Tim	Mr. Peter Brooke.
Hannam, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Rowlands

I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (6) and insert— ' (6) No Order in Council shall be made under this section unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

The Chairman

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 150.

No. 26, in page 2, line 26, leave out ' twenty-eight ' and insert ' twenty-one '.

No. 27, in page 2, line 33, leave out ' four ' and insert ' five '.

Mr. Rowlands

This amendment is an important one and it is rather sad that we reach it at this hour of the morning. It is sad because it was not the Opposition who forced upon the House the nonsense of trying to carry through all the stages of this Bill at one go. Therefore, we have every right to suggest that it is sad that an amendment of the character and importance of amendment No. 38 should be reached at such a time.

Nevertheless, we must seek to do justice to the amendment, which is signed not only by my right hon. Friends and myself but also by two Conservative Members. I am sure that the amendment will have the sympathy of many hon. Members.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

On a point of order Mr. Weatherill. I wonder whether you would advise me whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) to move amendment No. 38, which is first in this group of amendments. I do not see his name on the Amendment Paper.

The Chairman

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has been in the House long enough to know that it is in order for any hon. Member to move an amendment. This is an official Opposition amendment, and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil is an official Opposition spokesman.

Mr. Crouch

Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The hon. Member said that his name appeared in support of the amendment. It does not. I have been in this House long enough to know that that is a deception of the House.

The Chairman

I did not hear the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) say that his name was on the amendment. I heard him say that he was moving the amendment. That is good enough for me.

Mr. Rowlands

I am moving the amendment. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends support it, as do one or two Government Members. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is one such Member. The purpose of the amendment is to establish the firmest possible parliamentary control over the orders that might be made under the Bill. It will ensure that orders are subject to affirmative resolution. Orders cannot be enforced unless and until the House approves them.

There are precedents for such parliamentary control, although I am sure that the Minister will use the Rhodesia legislation as a comparison. I have no doubt that section 2(5) of that legislation will be quoted.

Yesterday, the Minister of State objected strongly to parallels being made between the Rhodesia provisions and the provisions in the Bill. He said: Another point that I am sure will arise in the debate—it inspires a good deal of the opposition to the Bill—is the parallel with Rhodesia…I would try to argue, not perhaps with an enormous hope of success, that the position is entirely different. The problem is different, the objective is different. We are not attempting in the Bill, or in any orders made under the Bill, to change a regime. I accept that. Then, curiously, he said: We are attempting to bring a regime back to some legality from the past. I thought that that was also what the Rhodesia provisions aimed to do. I am sure that the Minister did not mean to echo the 1965 arguments.

Mr. Hurd

The word "not" was omitted from Hansard.

Mr. Rowlands

I am glad to hear that the Minister is consistent. I failed to understand how the second quoted sentence meant anything. However, the Minister argued that the Rhodesia provisions were not comparable in any shape or form. The Minister said: We are not claiming to seal frontiers or to bring anyone to their knees. We are not talking in terms of weeks or months. What time scale are we discussing? That is relevant to parliamentary control over the order. An affirmative procedure was built into the Rhodesia legislation. Section 2 of the Act required renewal on an annual basis. As the Minister who holds the world record for moving sanctions provisions—I moved five—I know that it was an important check when we had to come to the House for reaffirmation of powers under that Act on an annual basis. The matter is important Either the Government are claiming that these orders are comparable with the orders which stemmed from an earlier piece of sanctions legislation, namely, the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, and are claiming a precedent under that Act, or, as the Minister spent some considerable time in saying yesterday, they are entirely different. He said: the position is entirely different. The problem is different, the objective is different."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 917–18.] In that sense we all agree with him. There is a strong case for considering a different procedure to control, supervise, scrutinise or improve orders that might stem from the Bill.

5.15 am

Orders under the Bill will affect negotiations on contracts at a crucial moment in time. If I were negotiating a contract in Iran which might be subject to an order, I should want to know whether that order would be in force. The Government may argue that the order, when it is laid and is in force, has been known about from day one. But there are 28 days in which the House would have the opportunity to debate whether it should be approved, renewed or continued. It would be better for the Government to come to the House with an order and to seek the clear approval of the House before proceeding. If they do not do so, there will be some considerable doubt about whether, at the end of 28 days, the order will be renewed and retained or whether the Government will uphold it. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) when he discussed an earlier amendment. He said that if we carried the earlier amendment there would be no need for this amendment. We did not carry the earlier amendment, so there is an even greater need for this amendment.

There is also a need for the amendment because we have no clear indication of the time scale, scope or nature of the orders that we are discussing. That goes back to an earlier but equally relevant debate and to the issues raised in the amendment. We do not know what sort of orders the Government intend to introduce. During the debate we tried to elicit what line the Government will take at the meeting of Foreign Ministers this weekend, so that we have some view of the range of sanctions that the Government might introduce in the immediate future. We received no real answer to that. We had an interesting diplomatic discussion about how everybody would take stock of the position, count the cost and consider the issues, starting from the minutes of the last meeting. We received no indication from the Minister about which sanctions would be used in the near future. Neither did we receive any indication of the time scales.

The Minister made a most amazing comment in yesterday's debate. I had hoped that he would intervene now to clarify the matter, but unfortunately he has left the Chamber. In yesterday's debate he said: We are not claiming to seal frontiers or to bring anyone to their knees. We are not talking in terms of weeks or months. What in the name of heaven are we talking about—years?

Mr. Rhodes James

We are talking about amendment No. 38.

Mr. Rowlands

We are talking about amendment No. 38. The hon. Gentleman interrupted from a sedentary position, which is perfectly reasonable, but I shall happily give way to him if he wishes. Amendment No. 38 discusses what form of parliamentary control should be placed upon the orders which will be brought forward under the Bill. Surely, very relevant is the length of time for which those orders will survive. If it will be a month, days, weeks, hours or whatever the case may be, one can look at the nature of the parliamentary control, but, if we are told that it is neither weeks nor months, what time scale are we talking about?

Mr. Dalyell

I quote from the bottom of column 917, where the Minister of State said: We are not attempting in the Bill, or in any orders made under the Bill, to change a regime. We are attempting to bring a regime back to some legality from the past We are not claiming to seal frontiers or to bring anyone to their knees. We are not talking in terms of weeks or months. That is the point of my intervention. Foolishly, from my point of view, from a sedentary position I asked "What on earth are we talking about?" The Minister heard very well what the intervention was. I should have interrupted him, but he then sped on to: I hope that the House will not find in our mouths the kind of overblown rhetoric that was familiar, at any rate, in the initial years, of sanctions against Rhodesia. But the question was put to him because at the time it seemed passing strange that he should use that phrase.

Mr. Rowlands

If my hon. Friend had carried on quoting that relevant paragraph in column 918, he would have come to the next sentence, which says: The objective is more modest. What is the modest nature of the orders? I do not quite understand what "modest" means in that context. If it is extremely modest, one could possibly accept a looser form of parliamentary control over such orders. But the Minister did not amplify the modesty of the objective. He said: In Iran, we are faced with a thoroughly confused and shifting political situation, with different groups jostling for power and now one. now another, appearing to have its nose in front. We are almost back to the Olympic Games. He added: I do not think it would be wise in that situation for anyone, not even the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), to be dogmatic either way in advance about the effects of the kind of measures that might be taken under the Bill."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 917–18.] What does that mean? What is the point and purpose of any such order? If we are not talking about its effect in weeks or months, what time scale are we talking about? We are talking about a "modest" objective. The objective is anything but modest, if it is aimed and designed to help to release the American hostages. That is not a modest objective. It is a fundamental and vitally important objective. The restoration of international law and the re-establishment of the basic principles on which international relationships have been governed are anything but modest.

However, if the Minister is saying—and it appears very much so from that paragraph—that the orders will have almost no consequence with regard to the internal turmoil of Iran, many hon. Members may accept that assessment. What are the Government trying to do in any order which they might bring forward? What time scale do they envisage for the orders being in force? If they are to be longer than a week or a month, should not we be certain that the orders are cleared by the House before they come into force and that a full affirmative parliamentary process is agreed to, as our amendment suggests?

By making such an order, which has to be renewed after 28 days, we may interrupt important negotiations and interrupt discussions on a specific contract. There will not be the clear and unequivocal understanding and knowledge that it will be the ultimate decision of the Government. The order will be reaffirmed by the House of Commons and continued after 28 days. Would it not be better for such orders, which could have an effect on jobs and on the future of certain firms and companies, to be brought before the House of Commons and given approval? Companies would then know that they should not pursue certain contracts because of the clear and unequivocal decision of this place—namely, that such orders should be in force until the Act provides for their withdrawal or revocation.

Mr. Dalyell

I make no complaint that the amendments were not selected, but there is a case for a shorter period than 28 days—for example, 21 days or even 14. Industry must know where it is. Industrial decisions are made rapidly. Against that background, 28 days is not all that satisfactory.

Mr. Rowlands

I gather that the amendments to which my hon. Friend refers are linked with this amendment. I think it would be in order, Mr. Weatherill, for discussion to take place on the shorter periods proposed in those amendments.

The Committee is owed an explanation by the Minister. How does he see the application of individual orders? How will they have an effect on the objective of the Bill and the orders generally—namely, to obtain the release of the American diplomatic hostages? We certainly need an explanation of the nonsensical sentence uttered by the Minister yesterday to the effect that the Government were not talking in terms of weeks or months. What are we talking about? We shall have to decide whether to press the amendment when we have heard the Minister's explanation.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I am not surprised that the amendment attracted all-party support. It appears to be to the advantage of the Government as well as meeting all points of view that it should be made.

I begin with a proposition that I do not think can be disputed—namely, that any provision that is put into a Bill to provide for parliamentary control must make the assumption that such control can be exercised in such a manner as to annul or to invalidate the order. It would be an absurdity and an insult to the House of Commons to justify a provision upon the basis that this place would never throw an order out. I therefore assume that the Government, in drafting the provision, entertained the possibility that there could be circumstances, and were intending to provide for circumstances, in which the will of the House of Commons would be contrary to the decision of the Government expressed in the order.

On that assumption. I should like the Government to contemplate the difficulties which would arise given the present form of the clause. A sanctions measure has been agreed upon by all the parties. They have also agreed upon a date for that measure to come into force. As the Bill stands, an Order in Council is made and the sanction is imposed. It will come into operation, with all the dislocation that that involves, from the moment that the order is made. Ex hypothesi it will also come into operation in all the States that agree to impose identical and simultaneous sanctions.

5.30 am

Let us suppose that within the 28-day period, and after sanctions have been in operation for three or more weeks, the House of Commons—in its wisdom or otherwise—refuses to approve the order. I think that I carried the Minister with me when I said that we must envisage that eventuality when we legislate. It is difficult to exaggerate the embarrassment and confusion that would arise. Her Majesty's Government would have failed to go along with an agreement. The order would lose its effect. As a result, if the House failed to approve the order, the measures would cease to have effect on that day, despite the fact that they had been in force for two, three or more weeks. Intolerable confusion, unfairness and embarrassment would follow. The Government cannot want that to occur. If they do, they must have strong reasons for providing for that possibility.

I am sure that the Minister will not argue that because those Orders in Council would be the expression of an international agreement the House would not have the power to exercise the facility provided by the clause. We have met that argument before. Within the past decade, the House has been informed that it could not alter a certain Bill because it implemented a treaty to which this country had already adhered: It was therefore impossible to make any appreciable amendments to the Bill. I should be surprised if the Minister sought that mode of escape. I should also be surprised if he argued that the House could not invalidate an order because that would break an international commitment.

So manifest is the preferability of the procedures suggested in the amendment—that sanctions should come into force only when they have the assent of Parliament—that one searches for the nature of any countervailing grounds. I have hit on two possible grounds. It is possible that these sanctions are expected to be affected simultaneously by all the countries involved. In that case, it would be convenient if the date of operation were in the hands of the Executive. No doubt the date of operation would be in the hands of the Executives of the other countries concerned.

The other possibility is that the Government think that these sanctions should come into effect suddenly, like a thunderbolt. Perhaps they think that they should be put into effect without any warning and without a draft of the new sanction and its terms being published. Perhaps they think that it should have the force of law as soon as it appears. Is that consonant with the theory behind the Bill? The Bill seeks to produce gradual pressure. At each stage it seeks to provide a pause for reflection and warning. Pressure is to be applied progressively. I cannot understand why it should be argued that the measures cannot be disclosed in a draft before they come into effect. In any case, even if these two qualities of instantaneity and simultaneity were desired, at any rate one of them, simultaneous operation, could perfectly well be achieved under the proposal in the amendment, since the date of operation could itself be written into the Order in Council, that date being a date later than that at which the Government would bring the draft before the House for the House to give it its approval.

I can only conclude, therefore, that the Government have concealed from us until this late stage of the Committee their intention to accept the amendment that that this was to arrive a little later than the dawn as a happy novelty in our proceedings—the Government not merely seeing the light in a metaphorical as well as a literal sense but having reserved to this late stage something to give pleasure to the Committee, some reward for the labours which have been devoted not only to the study of the Bill but to its debate during these proceedings.

I hope that that is to prove the explanation, and not a more sinister possibility which occurred to me, though only to be dismissed: That, as on a previous occasion of unhappy memory, the Government were determined that there should not be a Report stage and, therefore, ineluctable though the arguments are for this amendment, were nevertheless determined not to accept the amendment.

I have endeavoured to protect, to hedge, to fence the arguments in favour of the amendment on every side. So I commend it to the Government, fenced as it now is with the triplex of irrefutable argument.

Mr. Parkinson

First, I welcome the engaging streak of optimism which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has just shown. He rehearsed the arguments extremely well. He anticipated a number of the arguments that I shall be using. But I am sorry to have to say that he drew the wrong conclusion and that he found his own arguments more compelling than I did.

I should like to explain briefly the Government's reasoning in choosing this unusual procedure. The Government were faced with a dilemma. We wish to give the House the optimum control and to give Parliament the optimum opportunity to express its views and to take decisions about orders laid before it under both Acts. We therefore considered providing for the affirmative resolution procedure. It would have been easier. I suggest that we would have denied even the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) the opportunity to make one of his speeches had we included the affirmative resolution procedure in the Bill. It would have made the passage of the Bill easier.

However, that procedure has a big disadvantage attached to it—and the right hon. Gentleman knows what it is. It is that it takes anything from six to eight weeks after preparing a draft to get the order through, and the delay can be prolonged when Parliament is not sitting. So there were difficulties in that procedure, because, against our wish to give Parliament the optimum say, we were faced with a number of other problems.

This is an enabling measure. As we have said repeatedly, it is important, and the Government are committed to acting in concert with their partners in the EEC and putting themselves in a position to take decisions by 17 May—this Saturday.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I take it that the period of 28 days is not 28 parliamentary days but is 28 calendar days. The Minister is therefore in difficulty with his own argument unless the House of Commons is not to go into recess for more than a month during the period of operation of the Bill or unless he is prepared to envisage the recall of Parliament during the recess for the purpose of giving the House the opportunity within the 28 days to annul the order.

Mr. Parkinson

As I understand it, and as the Bill states, in calculating the period aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. If the Government were faced with the necessity of making an order when the House was not in session during a recess, the 28 days would start to run when the sitting resumed, as I understand it. But it would mean that the Government could take action quickly to meet their commitments. As I have repeatedly said, we are committed to sending the Foreign Secretary to the meeting on Saturday, armed with the powers under this enabling measure and the 1939 Act, with the ability to take decisions to act in concert with our allies.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Parkinson

If I may develop my argument a little further, I shall give way.

We believe that our ability to meet that commitment would be damaged by using the normal affirmative resolution procedure. We do not think that we would be in a position to meet our commitment.

Secondly, there are impracticalities the other way from using the affirmative resolution procedure in an instance such as this. I draw a parallel. Announcing that in six to eight weeks the duty on whisky was going to increase would ensure that there was a tremendous run on sales of whisky in that period. That is why, under the excise duties provisions, we are able to make announcements and to impose them very quickly to prevent such a run.

For instance, if we announced our intention to ban the supply of certain goods in quantity to Iran some six or eight weeks hence, the opportunities for pushing out large quantities of those goods, thereby undermining the purpose of the order, would be plentiful.

Therefore, the Government have this dilemma. They must be able to make the decisions that they announce work. They must be able to make sanctions stick. The whole idea of imposing an order would be undermined by giving people notice that in six to eight weeks they would not be able to do something that the Government decided was undesirable at the time they decided to lay the order.

Mr. Rowlands

Will the Minister tell us what the six to eight weeks is about? Can he tell us why, from the time an order is laid before Parliament, it would take six to eight weeks?

Mr. Parkinson

I understand that is the normal time that it takes.

Mr. Robert Hughes

rose—

Mr. Parkinson

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) is undermining his own argument. If he carries on on that basis, he will eventually prove that the affirmative resolution procedure offers less help to Parliament than what we are suggesting.

Mr. Robert Hughes

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Parkinson

Not at the moment.

Therefore, the Government were faced with this dilemma. We wish to give Parliament the optimum say, but, under an enabling measure, we wish to be able to take swift action to prevent the export of a particular product and to make sanctions stick if we believe that a ban should be placed on that product's export. That is how the procedure envisaged in the Bill came to be adopted. It is a compromise. The order takes effect immediately it is laid. Then the House has 28 days during which it can consider the matter. At the end of that time, if it is not approved by affirmative resolution, the order lapses.

5.45 am

The arguments of the right hon. Member for Down, South were fair. He said that uncertainty would be created and that we must work on the principle that Parliament can reject any order. I suggest that it is equally damaging to announce that there is a hole and that the Government intend to plug it but that they will not do so for six to eight weeks—the time that is normally taken between the drafting and laying of an order—

Mr. Rowlands

It takes only 28 days.

Mr. Parkinson

If it takes only 28 days, why is the hon. Member putting the Government in the position during the parliamentary recess of not being able to act where they see a blatant abuse or an undermining of their own policy of sanctions? I remind the Committee that the principle of the Bill was approved by the House yesterday.

The Government have the difficulty of reconciling the need to give Parliament a say with the need to take effective action promptly. That is why we decided on the compromise—an affirmative resolution procedure with the House having 28 days, at the end of which the order would lapse if it had not been approved.

The Government must not work on the principle that they will always have a majority. They must assume that there will be contentious orders, with which people in their own ranks do not agree. Perhaps that will be a discipline on the Government not to take risks and lay orders which might not be carried. The Chief Whip and the party managers would take great care not to lay orders unless they were reasonably confident that they could carry them through the House.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Will my hon. Friend answer two questions? If the Government's ability to move is disciplined by the Chief Whip and the party managers' awareness of tides of opinion within the party, how can we act in concert with our allies? Surely, the whole idea is simultaneity with our allies. How can they work out how the party will feel about a particular order?

Mr. Parkinson

They will have to see what the Government can deliver. When the Government agree to do something, they should take account of what they can do. It is up to our Government to keep a pledge once they have made it.

I shall deal in detail with the six to eight-week period. That includes time for printing, arranging two debates and waiting for the monthly Privy Council meeting. The 28-day period runs from making the Order in Council, and there is no wait for either printing or the Privy Council meeting. This procedure could be speeded up, and also it is available to the Government in a parliamentary recess.

This is a matter to which the Government have given considerable thought. They realised that this debate was likely to happen if we had a procedure other than that involving affirmative resolution. We concluded that it was absolutely vital for the Government to have this power. That is why we have adopted a compromise procedure. I hope that the Committee will approve it.

Mr. Robert Hughes

I listened to the Minister with great care. What he has said so far deals with the normal procedure on Government business, but surely he should relate these provisions to the question of why the Bill is necessary. I thought that the Bill's purpose was to facilitate the release of the hostages. I am a little puzzled why he is concerned about the inhibitions on the Government in taking action in a parliamentary recess of a prolonged character.

We all know that we shall have a recess fairly soon, namely, at Whitsun. But the next recess—in fact, it is the only major recess—is the Summer Recess. There is half of May, the whole of June and the whole of July before we reach that point. If we assume that the House will rise not later than the glorious twelfth of August, that will give us three full calendar months during which time the Government and their allies will have to make up their minds what sanctions are to be applied. If major sanctions orders are to be laid after 12 August, that means a further three months' incarceration for the hostages.

If there is no movement at all in three months towards the release of the hostages, the whole of the strategy of the Government and their allies will be in total ruins. We would then be dealing not with the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill but with something that would cover a much longer period of time. The Minister appears to disagree, but he must address himself to how the Bill will work. If the Bill shows no signs of working and major issues affecting sanctions crop up in three months' time, the Government will find themselves in serious difficulty. The Minister should accept the amendment because action is bound to be taken, if it is to be taken at all, within the next three months.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister would be wise to accept the amendment, although I understand the reasons which he advanced, particularly the one relating to the recess. If he were to accept the amendment, he would avoid possible embarrassment to the Government internationally and in their relationships with British industrialists and exporters.

God forbid that we shall have to apply this machinery. I am supporting it in the belief that we will not have to do so. But, if it should come to that, I am convinced that there will be cases when it will be difficult for Government supporters to go along with the detail of particular orders. As the future unfolds, the Government should recognise that there may be difficulties in regard to certain sanctions orders. Therefore, they should ensure that they can obtain the order if they wish to go ahead and lay a draft. That would ensure parliamentary control, and that is something I and many others have often argued for. Above all, it would ensure certainty in the minds of our business men and industrialists, who surely are entitled to some certainty.

I end with one question to my hon. Friend. Can he be sure that the procedures of the American Congress are such that it will allow its Administration in all circumstances to bring in sanctions in a manner which would be concerted with others, on the same time scale in particular ways? I suspect that Congress, in some matters at least, would be much more difficult than we would.

Mr. Dalyell

I am inclined to think that this attitude was struck by the Minister first of all out of good motives, good faith and concern for the proper working of the House of Commons. I think that he meant what he said about optimum control being given to the House. On the other hand, there are difficulties. I am still not clear about the six to eight weeks necessary to get the draft through. I repeat that question. In the same breath, I must say something to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who has made a valuable contribution over the last 12 hours. He said it candidly and I respect him for it, but one shudders when one hears serious hon. Members saying that, of course, they are voting for something in the hope and belief that it will never be used. That is the kind of thing that leads us into very great difficulty.

Mr. Brotherton

That is the case with the death penalty.

Mr. Dalyell

I am not sure that the analogy is with the death penalty. This is what leads us into the greatest difficulty and I believe that we are at the beginning, not the end, of a road of many tears.

We come back to the question of acting in concert with other countries. I hope that the questions posed about lines 17 and 18 will be answered. What did the Minister of State mean by his phrase: We are not talking in terms of weeks or months."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 918.] I see him nodding. I am sure that he will do me the courtesy of answering that point.

Mr. Brotherton

The most important thing which has to be emphasised today is our acting in concert, acting together. In 1956, 24 years ago, the United States of America failed to support this country when we went into Suez. That was the last most important act of Empire. What we must not fail to do is to support the United States. When the United States says that it believes we should impose sanctions on these people in Iran, this must be the most important thing we can do.

It is all very well for the people of Europe to say that they are members of NATO and of the Atlantic Alliance. The most important thing is that we are members of the Western Alliance. We must defend ourselves against the most important threat of the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan and wherever else it may be. We must support the Bill because we must defend the West against Russia.

Mr. Rowlands

The Minister of State owes the Committee a further explanation in respect of some of his remarks about this part of the Bill. His speech was a salutary lesson for those of us who tried to "second-guess" the arguments that would be produced. I must confess I never thought he would come forward with the argument that it would take six to eight weeks to introduce an order and, consequently, it is for that reason that he cannot accept our amendment. He says that this is the normal process. The Committee is debating a Bill which was introduced last Thursday and is expected to go through all its processes in one sitting. That is most abnormal behaviour. If the Government have the conviction and determination, the House of Commons is capable of doing certain things. If the Government wish to introduce an order, lay a draft and call a special meeting of the Privy Council to approve an order—even going through the Statutory Instruments Committee and all the rest—they can do this as quickly as they wish.

6 am

Speed does not invalidate the point we make. The Minister tended to imply that this would negate the whole idea behind our amendment. That is nonsense. We argue that the House has the right to give its approval before an order comes into effect. The House can do so promptly. This is shown by the speed with which it has been asked to deal with the Bill. There is also the example of past orders and enabling Bills. Only last year, two Bills on Rhodesia came before the House on which hon. Members were asked to act as speedily as possible. The argument about six to eight weeks is not convincing. If the Government wish to bring in an order swiftly, procedures are available, as well as those incorporated in the Bill.

The second issue relates to what happens if the House is in a long recess. An important point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). Are the Government contemplating the possibility that major orders under the Bill will have to be introduced between August and October as a means of applying pressure on Iran to release the hostages? We have asked for an explanation of the Minister of State's remark that We are not talking in terms of weeks or months."—[Official Report, 12 May, 1980; Vol. 984, c. 918.] What time scale are we talking about? What message did the hon. Gentleman mean to give to the House when he made that statement?

Mr. Hurd

It may be for the convenience of the House if I deal with this legitimate point on the new clauses which deal with the whole question of termination of time scale.

Mr. Rowlands

We shall look forward to that explanation. It has relevance to the points we are making about the handling of the orders and the degree of parliamentary scrutiny over them. It would be improper if an order, which could affect employment in Coventry and have an impact on vital contracts, both future and present, given the definition of renewal and extension of contracts provided by the Minister, was introduced in the recess and remained in force for two or three months before Parliament

Division No. 303]	AYES	[6.05 am
Dalyell, Tam	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter	Rowlands, Ted	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Haynes, Frank	Soley, Clive	Mr. Terry Davis and
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)	Welsh, Michael	Mr. Kevin McNamara.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
NOES
Alexander, Richard	Cope, John	Hill, James
Ancram, Michael	Crouch, David	Hooson, Tom
Aspinwall, Jack	Dorrell, Stephen	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Atkins, Robert (Preston North)	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Hurd, Hon Douglas
Banks, Robert	Dover, Denshore	Johnston. Russell (Inverness)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Durant, Tony	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Berry, Hon Anthony	Dykes, Hugh	Kershaw, Anthony
Best, Keith	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Knight, Mrs Jill
Bevan, David Gilroy	Elliott, Sir William	Latham, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John	Fairgrieve, Russell	Lawrence, Ivan
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Forman. Nigel	Le Marchant, Spencer
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Braine, Sir Bernard	Garel-Jones, Tristan	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Bright, Graham	Glyn, Dr Alan	Lyell, Nicholas
Brinton, Tim	Goodlad, Alastair	Major, John
Brooke, Hon Peter	Gorst, John	Marland, Paul
Brotherton, Michael	Gow, Ian	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Mather, Carol
Buck, Antony	Gummer, John Selwyn	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Budgen, Nick	Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Hampson, Dr Keith	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Hannam, John	Mills, lain (Meriden)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Hawksley, Warren	Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Cockeram, Eric	Heddle, John	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Colvin, Michael	Henderson, Barry	Moate, Roger

debated it. That is a matter of considerable concern. If such a situation arose, there is another procedure available—the recall of Parliament.

Given the nature and importance of some of the orders that may be introduced, especially if the American hostages are still in detention in August, September and October, there may certainly be a need for Parliament to be recalled to debate further actions by the Government and their European partners at the request or behest—I do not wish to become involved in last night's discussion about those two words—of the United States Government. We feel that we must press the amendment.

Mr. Dalyell

I must respond to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton). There has been an implication that some hon. Members, in our remarks, are anti-American—

The Chairman

Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not pursue that point. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), who spoke for only a minute, was out of order.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 139.

Monro, Hector	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Stradling Thomas, J.
Montgomery, Fergus	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Ridsdale, Julian	Tebbit, Norman
Murphy, Christopher	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy	Temple-Morris, Peter
Myles, David	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman	Thompson, Donald
Needham, Richard	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Nelson, Anthony	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Trippier, David
Newton, Tony	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Viggers, Peter
Normanton, Tom	Shersby, Michael	Waddington, David
Onslow, Cranley	Silvester, Fred	Waldegrave, Hon William
Page, John (Harrow, West)	Sims, Roger	Ward, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Speed, Keith	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Speller, Tony	Wheeler, John
Parkinson, Cecil	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)	Whitney, Raymond
Parris, Matthew	Sproat, lain	Wickenden, Keith
Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Squire, Robin	Wolfson, Mark
Patten, John (Oxford)	Stainton, Keith	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Rathbone, Tim	Steen, Anthony	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rees-Davies, W. R.	Stevens, Martin	Mr. John MacGregor and
Renton, Tim	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)	M r. John Wakeham.
Rhodes James, Robert	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto,

Division No. 304]	AYES	[6.15 am
Alexander, Richard	Heddle, John	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ancram, Michael	Henderson, Barry	Renton, Tim
Aspinwall, Jack	Hill, James	Rhodes James, Robert
Banks, Robert	Hooson, Tom	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Hurd, Hon Douglas	Ridsdale, Julian
Best, Keith	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Bevan, David Gilroy	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Biggs-Davison, John	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Blackburn, John	Kershaw, Anthony	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	King, Rt Hon Tom	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Braine, Sir Bernard	Knight, Mrs Jill	Shersby, Michael
Bright, Graham	Latham, Michael	Silvester, Fred
Brinton, Tim	Lawrence, Ivan	Sims, Roger
Brooke, Hon Peter	Le Marchant, Spencer	Speed, Keith
Brotherton, Michael	Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Speller, Tony
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Buck, Antony	Lyell, Nicholas	Sproat, lain
Budgen, Nick	MacGregor, John	Squire, Robin
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Major, John	Stainton, Keith
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Marland, Paul	Stanbrook, Ivor
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Steen, Anthony
Cockeram, Eric	Mather, Carol	Stevens, Martin
Colvin, Michael	Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Cope, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Crouch, David	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Dorrell, Stephen	Mills, lain (Meriden)	Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Temple-Morris, Peter
Dover, Denshore	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Thompson, Donald
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Moate, Roger	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Durant, Tony	Monro, Hector	Trippier, David
Dykes, Hugh	Montgomery, Fergus	Viggers, Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Waddington, David
Elliott, Sir William	Murphy, Christopher	Wakeham, John
Fairgrieve, Russell	Myles, David	Waldegrave, Hon William
Forman, Nigel	Needham, Richard	Waller, Gary
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Nelson, Anthony	Ward, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Newton, Tony	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd ft Stev'nage)
Glyn, Dr Alan	Normanton, Tom	Wheeler, John
Goodlad, Alastair	Onslow, Cranley	Whitney, Raymond
Gorst, John	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Wickenden, Keith
Gow, Ian	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Wolfson, Mark
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Parkinson, Cecil	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Gummer, John Selwyn	Parris, Matthew
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hampson, Dr Keith	Patten, John (Oxford)	Mr. Anthony Berry and
Hannam, John	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Mr. Robert Boscawen.
Hawksley, Warren	Rathbone, Tim

forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48 (Debate on clause or schedule standing part), That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 142, Noes 4.

NOES
Dalyell, Tam	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Welsh, Michael	Mr. Kevin McNamara and
		Mr. Clive Soley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.