HC Deb 19 May 1980 vol 985 cc44-8
Mr. Dalyell

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose or discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the breach of the procedure of the House of Commons by the Government in failing to bring forward new legislation on Iran (Temporary Powers) in the light of the Lord Privy Seal's statement and the Government's decision to backdate the imposition of sanctions to 4 November 1979. The matter is specific, in that the Iran (Temporary Powers) Act 1980 states, as a central part of the Act, that (2) An Order in Council under subsection (1)—(a) shall not apply to any contract made before the date on which the Order is made". In the debate on the Iran (Temporary Powers) Bill the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office referred to two important qualifications: Subsection (2) provides that no order under the Bill can apply to existing contracts or to any contracts made before the date on which an order under the Bill is made. What can be clearer than that?

The Minister of State also said: This Bill gives the Government no power over existing contracts. Powers exist under the 1939 Act not over contracts but as regards the shipment of goods. What could be clearer than that?

Indeed, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), the Minister of State said: We would have power under the 1939 Act to deal with that situation, but as regards shipment, not contracts."—[Official Report, 12 May 1980; Vol. 984, c. 919–21.] Perhaps the Minister is getting petulant about the 1939 Act. I should like to quote from "YY3", page 179, of Hansard, which has not yet been printed. At 4.30 am last Wednesday morning, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said: the hon. Member for West Lothian has done nothing but read out great chunks of the 1939 Act, which does not seem to be relevant to the Bill or to his amendment. I put it to him that those chunks were highly relevant.

If one looks at "R3", page 55 of the imprinted Hansard——

Mr. Speaker

Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he should confine his remarks to his application. He should not make the speech that he would make if his application were granted.

Mr. Dalyell

I draw those quotations to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because I do not believe in gesture politics. I do not believe that hon. Members should move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for frivolous reasons, or for those of publicity. I am simply trying to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious case. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield),—" R3 ", page 55 of the unprinted Hansard for 12 May 1980—the Minister clearly said: The Talbot contract is an existing one which would be affected, if at all, by the 1939 Act. The Government are fully aware of the contract. The Minister made clear that the Bill applied to future contracts. The Minister for Trade spoke petulantly on 13 May 1980. If one looks at "VV3" page 280, one sees that it states: I remind the House that the Bill deals only with the question of future contracts. Throughout the night that was in Ministers' minds——

Mr. Speaker

That may well be. However, the hon. Gentleman must make his case as to why a debate that has been promised, should take place tonight or tomorrow. That is the burden of his application. I do not want a rehearsal of the arguments that were used last week.

Mr. Dalyell

Through the learned Clerk Assistant it has been brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that some of us think that the Government's proposals introduce the principle of retrospective legislation. This is not a legalistic point, nor will it wait. Many contracts have been signed between 4 November and last week. In answer to your legitimate question, Mr. Speaker, that is why there is urgent need for a debate. Many firms have extremely urgent interests.

As proof, the trade figures—which were published on Friday—show that exports to Iran were worth £54 million in April 1980. The level of exports is slowly returning to the figure of £750 million per annum, the figure that existed before the revolution. It would be difficult to establish exact figures for the amount of business transacted between 4 November and the Royal Assent. Doubtless some exporters may try to backdate their contracts as a means of circumventing sanctions. But a managing director, who must remain nameless as he has not cleared the statement with his board, spoke to me this morning. His remarks demonstrate the urgency of the issue. He said: If sanctions are to be imposed from 4 November, then we are knocked for six, not only on account of current losses, but also on account of the ill-will of our customers, in Iran, who will turn to the Romanians and East Germans, and are unlikely to come back to us, after being let down on current work. An export manager—who will remain nameless for obvious reasons—wearily said that if sanctions were to be backdated to 4 November, he would get straight on to his Turkish contacts to see how they could fulfil the contract, by transporting goods through Turkey. Even today, action is being taken.

The issue is of public importance because the Lord Privy Seal's statement is diametrically opposed to the presumably considered and reflected judgment that Her Majesty's Government took only 60 hours ago. The issue is urgent because we have been made to look little more than—I do not like to use such language—creatures of the Americans. It appears that we are subject to every pressure from Washington. Whether or not one likes that type of language, that degree of amenability to another country would seem to warrant urgent debate.

The issue involves retrospective legislation. Britain's reputation may be damaged not only in Iran, but throughout the Arab world.

The proposals before us are quite, quite different from those which we discussed last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. If the Government wish to proceed along the lines of the Minister's statement and if they wish to proceed with what purports to be the Naples agreement, they are honour bound to introduce new legislation. The proposals for that legislation should be a matter of extreme urgency.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the breach of the procedure of the House of Commons by the Government in failing to bring forward new legislation on Iran (Temporary Powers) in the light of the Lord Privy Seal's statement and the Government's decision to backdate the imposition of sanctions to 4 November 1979 ". The House has heard the exchanges that took place. The Lord Privy Seal made clear that a debate would take place, and that this order cannot proceed without a debate. I think that I have not misjudged the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Order. As I understood the exchanges, it stated clearly that a debate would be held on the proposals that the Lord Privy Seal had outlined.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, the Government's statement was to the effect that the House would handle an order made under the 1939 Act exactly as it would handle an order made under the 1980 Act. In other words, it can be annulled after it has been in force.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that point.

Mr. Jay

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly understood the Minister to say that the order would come into force, and that the House would be able to debate it afterwards. If that is not so, perhaps the Minister will make clear what he said.

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Ian Gilmour)

I think that I said that the timing of this provision would be decided in co-ordination with our partners, and as a result of discussions through the usual channels.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am in the middle of giving a ruling on a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the provisions that I earlier read out. I now understand that those provisions could come into operation without any discussion in the House. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9.

The leave of the House having been refused, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen, the motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow