HC Deb 11 July 1984 vol 63 cc1044-9

4.7 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on yesterday's attack on a British vessel in the Gulf, north-east of Bahrain.

At approximately 1200 hours GMT, a British-owned and registered tanker, the British Renown was attacked from the air and struck by two missiles, which I am glad to report caused little damage and no casualties among the crew, nearly all of whom were British subjects. The British Renown is now anchored nine miles off Dubai, and a member of the staff of our consulate general has gone on board to render any assistance that may be needed.

All the available evidence is that the attack was made by aircraft of the Iranian air force. Accordingly, in the absence in Tehran of the Iranian chargé d'affaires, we have summoned the next most senior member of the Iranian embassy in order to deliver a strong protest. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that this deliberate, unprovoked and wholly unjustified attack is totally unacceptable.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has reviewed his advice to British shipping in the Gulf in the light of this incident. While it is for the companies themselves to inform their crews about the risks involved, he has re-emphasised the need for British shipowners to take this incident into full consideration in deciding whether to enter the Gulf and to exercise all necessary vigilance while there.

Her Majesty's Government deplore this incident, and indeed all attacks on shipping in the Gulf area. They are further proof of the need to see an early end to the continuing conflict between Iran and Iraq. We shall continue to support all serious efforts to bring that conflict to an end, and in the meantime will vigorously uphold the principle of freedom of navigation, which has been reaffirmed by successive Security Council resolutions.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

The Minister will know that we deplore the unprovoked attack, agree with the protest action that the Government have taken, and share their sense of relief that the attack caused no damage, or loss of life or injury to our seamen. Did the attack take place within the war zone, as determined by negotiations between the employers and the National Union of Seamen? Were the seamen on the ship volunteers in the full sense of the word? What is the nature of the review of the advice which the Secretary of State for Transport gives British shipping? On the strength of what has been said today, it would seem to involve no real change in the earlier advice.

The Minister will be aware that there had earlier been evidence of a lull or decline in the number of such incidents. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, has that decline been due in part to the efforts of the Gulf Co-operation Council? If so, will the Government encourage the GCC to keep up its pressure on the belligerents to agree to rules on freedom of navigation and the safety of ships entering the Gulf and plying international waters? Has not this incident reminded us yet again of the risks to our shipping in the Gulf? Will the British insurance companies, as a result of this incident, be reviewing their premium rates?

On the general issue of the Gulf, are the Government aware of the need to involve the Soviet Union in the area, where there are certain shared interests between Russia and ourselves and our allies? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Soviet Union could play a positive role?

Mr. Luce

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, about where the attack took place, is that it occurred several miles north-east of Bahrain, which is in the war risk zone as defined by the General Council of British Shipping. It follows from that that, as a result of discussions between the General Council of British Shipping and the seafarers' union, anyone who enters the war risk zone does so as a volunteer. We must assume, therefore, that all British subjects on the ship were volunteers.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the nature of the advice given by the Secretary of State for Transport is that I explained the present position in my statement. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, at the end of May my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the General Council of British Shipping to the heightened risks involved in the Gulf as a result of the serious incidents which took place particularly during May. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is fair to say that there has been no substantial change in the advice, save only to draw attention to this incident.

It is absolutely right to say that the Gulf states are working extremely hard — this answers the hon. Gentleman's question about the Gulf Co-operation Council—behind the scenes, at the United Nations and elsewhere, to try to get not only restraint but mediation to end the war.

Premium rates are a matter for the insurance companies and riot for the Government. The companies are aware of the risks; it is therefore for them to determine the rates. It is not a matter for the Government to decide.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about the Soviet Union is that, when the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was in Moscow recently, he discussed stability in the Gulf.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us in the British-Iranian Society in the House who seek to keep alive some form of relations with Iran, despite the conflict, join my hon. Friend in deploring this act, which will make more difficult the resumption of any kind of relationship with Iran?

On the matter of international waters, can he confirm that the United States has been escorting some of its merchant vessels in the area? What is the position in respect of the provision of escort for British vessels which might be placed in difficulty?

Mr. Luce

On my hon. Friend's last point—I agreed with everything he said at the beginning of his remarks —I can say clearly that the United States Government have made it plain that at present they have no policy to escort merchant shipping. All effort is going into seeking restraint in the area by diplomatic means, and therefore there is at present no policy to escort merchant ships or tankers.

The same applies to British merchant ships. The risks involved are known to them and my right hon. Friend takes great care to ensure that those risks are well known. It is their choice. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that for us to go a stage further and, for example, provide convoy protection would involve serious and wide political implications which we should seek to avoid.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

Is it not a fact that our trade with Iran is now much greater than it was in the days of the Shah's rule and that we are thereby making a significant contribution to Khomeini's war machine, from which we have on this occasion suffered a relatively insignificant effect compared with some of the unutterably awful things that are happening in the war? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, unless the Government are prepared to do something about this trade situation, all the talk about wishing to end the conflict and about freedom of navigation and the rest is no more than crocodile tears?

Mr. Luce

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong to suggest that our policies are making a contribution to inflaming the situation between those two countries. We trade, but we trade with both. In ordinary commercial terms, we have, it is true, substantial trade but it is with both countries.

As for the war, the hon. Gentleman knows that we remain neutral and do not sell lethal arms; we sell only non-lethal arms—[Interruption.]—to both sides. That remains our policy. Our view is that the best contribution that we can make to restraining the situation between Iran and Iraq is not to sell lethal arms. Other countries are selling such arms. If they were to make the contribution that we are making, that in itself would be constructive.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East)

What was the loading port of this ship in the Gulf?

Mr. Luce

I can only say at present that it has returned to Dubai. It was on its way to offload oil from another ship, Liberian-registered and Swiss-managed, oil which —this must remain subject to confirmation—was to be taken to the Arab Emirates.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

The Minister has spoken of the Government's anxiety to end the conflict. What positive steps have the Government taken within the United Nations to try to end hostilities?

Mr. Luce

We are constantly trying through various diplomatic channels, including — I would almost say above all — the United Nations, to work with other countries towards a diplomatic resolution of the problem. A notable development since I last made a statement on an incident involving a British ship is that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has persuaded both Iran and Iraq to stop attacks on civilian targets on both sides, and we must hope that that holds. I believe it is the first time that both countries, in however limited a way, have sought to co-operate with the United Nations.

Mr. Terry Davis (Birmingham, Hodge Hill)

May we have an assurance that, if any British seamen are injured in this or in any similar attacks, they will be brought back to this country for medical treatment as quickly as possible? May we have a further assurance that should any of them turn out to be British subjects without the right of abode in this country they will not be charged for any medical treatment which they receive in hospitals under the National Health Service as the result of regulations introduced by this Government?

Mr. Luce

I assure the hon. Gentleman—I am glad that on this occasion there is no evidence of any casualties —that the highest priority would be given to providing the kind of protection and support that they would need.

I wish to clarify one point about my earlier remarks when I talked about lethal and non-lethal arms. I meant to refer to non-lethal equipment, not arms.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the escalation of hostilities and the difficulties arising in the Gulf, we may soon have a severe oil shortage in Britain? Will he ask the Prime Minister to get on with the job of settling the coal strike to ensure that fuel supplies to our industries are maintained?

Mr. Luce

The distance between the Gulf and the coal strike is considerable. Oil supplies generally are stable, as we have seen from the evidence of the last few months. Stocks of oil in the world are very high. There is cooperation among all the Governments most concerned about imports of oil from the Gulf to ensure that, should the situation deteriorate, adequate emergency measures can be taken.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Does the Minister accept that the British attempts to bring an end to the war and peace to the Gulf are severely hampered by the continued sale of arms and equipment to both sides in the war, thereby prolonging the conflict and the war? It makes efforts to bring peace to the area so much nonsense when blood money is being made in Britain by the sale of arms and equipment to both sides.

Mr. Luce

It is our hope and wish that other countries will follow our example and not sell lethal equipment and arms. If they do that, the prospect of reducing the really serious effects of the war would be much stronger. We ask other Governments to follow our example.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

The Minister has said that the assessment of risk on entering the war zone must be one for the shipping companies. What British interests are preserved by companies deciding to shoulder the risk? Do the Government have any view on whether our interests are better served by ships entering the war zone or not entering it?

Mr. Luce

British interests are not confined to stability in the Gulf. The western world, let alone Britain, is concerned that there should be a free flow of oil from the Gulf. That is clearly a British interest. It is not for us to dictate to shipowners what they should do. They know precisely what the risks are and it is for them to make a decision. I think that that is the right approach.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Does the Minister accept—I am sure he does—that there is real anxiety among many seafarers' families? When he says that other countries should follow our example, should he not go a little carefully? After all, it was we who were casual two years ago about changing the rules of engagement. What are the rules of engagement, and what exactly is the war risk zone? What information does the Foreign Office have on this touchy and difficult subject from the authorities in Tehran? The safety of many sailors is at stake.

Mr. Luce

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said about the natural anxiety of seafarers. That is why it is sensible that shipowners and the seafarers' union reach an understanding about the arrangements for the northern part of the Gulf, where there is the greatest risk, so that seafarers go there as volunteers and not compulsorily. It is their choice and I can understand why they have taken their decision.

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's question about rules of engagement. We are not involved in a military sense on the Gulf and there is no question of us considering the rules of engagement.

Mr. Dalyell

What have the Iranians said about this?

Mr. Luce

I did not catch that.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

What have the Iranians said about this? What response has the Minister received to his thoroughly proper complaint to the Iranian embassy? What is his definition of non-lethal equipment which we are prepared to supply? Does this mean transport and other forms of equipment which make it possible to operate lethal arms and other equipment?

Mr. Luce

As I have said, we have approached the Iranians and have told them exactly what we think about the incident. We now await a response from the Iranian Government. I do not know how long that will take so I cannot give a direct answer to that part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.

I accept that there are enormous difficulties in interpreting what is non-lethal equipment and what is lethal. It has to be assessed whether the sale of particular equipment is likely in any way to exacerbate the war between Iran and Iraq.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Why do the Government not do the decent thing and instruct all those who are engaged in this deadly traffic to stop trading in oil while the war takes place? Are the Government so concerned to try to defeat the miners—they will fail, of course, as most of the nation now knows—that they are prepared to put seafarers' lives at risk? Is that what the Government really believe in? Are they prepared to put people's lives at risk to make profit while trying to defeat the miners at the same time? Why do they not put a stop to this deadly business?

Mr. Luce

The hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Government's attitude to seafarers' lives are so contemptible that I have nothing further to say.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

The House will welcome the fact that no seamen were injured in this deplorable incident. The incident serves to remind us of the dangers facing British seamen, especially on a day when the House will be voting to remove the tax allowance from seafarers. Is the Minister aware that the review to which he has referred is one that I asked for two months ago of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport? In asking for a review, I requested that British ships and seamen be removed from the danger area as the Japanese Government have removed Japanese shipping and seamen. Will he review the Government's policy yet again and give further consideration to the removal of our ships and seamen from this area?

The Minister has referred to an agreement in the industry, but is he aware that many British ships are not covered by industrial agreements and that attacks have taken place on British ships which have foreign crews? Has the Foreign Office been concerned to protest about those attacks? Can we be assured that there is no differentiation in the Department's view of British ships whatever their crews?

Mr. Luce

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I appreciate his close concern with the issue, bearing in mind his other responsibilities and interests. I know that he has been in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I shall draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The agreement or understanding was drawn up only after careful consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the Foreign Office. We shall keep the matter under careful review. I have noted exactly what the hon. Gentleman has said.