HC Deb 08 March 1984 vol 55 cc994-1000 3.47 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the recent attack on a British vessel near Bandar Khomeini.

We learnt on 7 March that a British-registered ship, The Charming, which formed part of a convoy under Iranian protection, was hit in an Iraqi attack in the northern Gulf on 1 March. The attack took place within Iranian territorial waters in the approaches to Bandar Khomeini.

The ship, which was carrying a cargo of alumina ore, is reported to be substantially damaged and aground outside Bandar Khomeini. I am glad to say that none of the crew was seriously hurt and I understand that most of them have now left Iran. It has been reported that Turkish and Indian ships forming part of the same convoy were also hit.

The Charming, like other ships in the convoy, had been and was required to maintain radio silence. Her owners did not subsequently inform Her Majesty's Government about the attack on their ship, and have requested no assistance.

Her Majesty's Government deplore this incident and, indeed, all attacks on shipping in the Gulf area. We have summoned the Iraqi ambassador to protest at his Government's action and to demand an explanation of it.

Her Majesty's Government remain deeply concerned to see an early end to the wasteful and destructive conflict which is continuing between Iraq and Iran. We are working vigorously with the international community to that end.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

First, on behalf of the Opposition, may I express our relief that, apparently, no British lives were lost in this unwarranted attack on a British ship, but also our regret that, apparently, sailors on other ships in the incident were killed. This incident highlights the dangers that exist in that region, where one spark could well set the whole middle east, and beyond, alight.

We must therefore be deeply concerned that the news of this attack comes to the British Government an incredible seven days after it happened. Notwithstanding the obvious need for some radio silence in the Gulf, why did it take so long for any news of such an important attack to get to the British Foreign Office? Does this not reflect the grave information gap which must somehow be closed, and what steps are being taken by the Government to make sure that it is closed? Furthermore, what confidence can the House have that at this very moment British ships, or even other ships, are not being attacked in the Gulf, and that we will not hear about it until this time next week? Is there not some significance in the fact that Lloyds of London doubled the insurance cover for journeys to Kharg island last week? Did Lloyds of London perhaps know of this attack before the British Government did? What significance is there in this? Can the Minister elaborate on the fact that the owners of this ship felt that they did not need to inform the British Government, or to request any further assistance for their substantially damaged ship?

This incident underlines the wider dangers of the Gulf war for all of us, so can the Government assure us all that, while they consider their reaction to this attack, they will make sure that the United States of America and the Soviet Union are involved in any discussions about preventing a repetition? Both the super powers have a considerable interest in this region, and their joint interests should surely override any sectional interest that they may have.

First, what evidence have the Government of the use by Iraq of the Exocet missiles that we know they possess in their armoury? Secondly, what British warships are in the area, how close are they to where this incident occurred, and what operating instructions have they for any future incidents that may occur? Finally, what is being done at the United Nations to protest at this disgraceful attack, and to push for some urgent initiative to stop this murderous war before its effects spread to the rest of us?

Mr. Luce

Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in sharing relief that there were no major British casualties. I have already explained the position with regard to the delay in the British Government knowing about this attack. I have explained that there was radio silence as far as the Iranians were concerned, that this convoy of shipping was under Iranian protection, and that the firm chose not to tell us.

I should like to add one other point. It has been known since 1982, on the advice given by the General Council of British Shipping, that there is what is declared as an Iraqi maritime exclusion zone which covers this whole area and in which the Iraqis are repeatedly giving warning that they would be liable to attack shipping. The General Council of British Shipping has repeatedly given warnings to British ships that there would be just that danger in entering that area. I am sure that this should be noted again, in the light of the recent experience.

On the use of weapons, all I can say is that we believe very strongly that our policy of not selling lethal weapons to either side is a policy that every other country should follow.

There are, and have been for some time, two British warships in the area south of the Gulf, and they are available if required.

On the question of the United Nations, where all our diplomatic efforts should be made with the international community to try to help the parties reach a settlement, informal discussions are currently taking place in the Security Council to see whether there is any possibility of the Secretary-General undertaking mediation.

Sir Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South)

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as far as action by the United Nations in concerned, there is already a resolution of the United Nations calling for a ceasefire, and for freedom to navigate international waters? Can my hon. Friend see how the United Nations can be any more effective than it has been so far?

Mr. Luce

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Resolution 540, which of course we supported very strongly, asks for a ceasefire in the Gulf area, as he says, and calls for the freedom of navigation in the Gulf area. We fully support that. The plain fact is that there have been repeated attempts over not only months but years to mediate between Iran and Iraq. A wide range of countries in the middle east, and outside the middle east, have attempted to mediate. The United Nations has attempted to play a role and resolution 540 calls upon those countries to do just that. However, as yet there is no agreement between the two parties that they should receive a representative of the Secretary-General, and until that happens it will not be possible for him to go.

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)

Surely the Minister of State is not asking the House to believe that the British Government did not know about this incident until 7 March. There are other ways of finding out what is happening in the Gulf without having to rely on information from British shipping. Can the Minister assure the House that in fact we did know about this incident before 7 March and give some explanation as to why he has not been more forthcoming on that point?

Whether the hon. Gentleman listened to the Prime Minister I am not sure, but in view of her remark about the United Nations it is hard to believe that the Government are using the Security Council. Would it not be an act of grave folly for Britain to involve itself in a so-called peacekeeping operation with the United States in the Straits of Hormuz without at the very least having first gone through every possible avenue in the United Nations, including the Security Council? Have we not learnt one lesson from the Lebanon—that the first course is to try to use the United Nations machinery?

Mr. Luce

No, we did not know until yesterday and I have explained why. I must repeat that there have been warnings over many months and since 1982 from the General Council of British Shipping that there would be grave risks if British ships went into that area, and I am sure that those warnings will be noted.

I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the United Nations. All our efforts and priorities are and must remain on the diplomatic side in seeking support for international effort and from the United Nations to get mediation between the two parties. That is our priority, and that is where all our efforts are going.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

Can my hon. Friend confirm that if British ships are sent by their owners into those waters the responsibility for any consequences to their ships or crews rests with the owners and not with the British Government?

Mr. Luce

My hon. Friend is right. It is important to draw a distinction between this particular area in the northern Gulf, where shipping has been under repeated attacks over the past several months from the various parties, and the rest of the Gulf south of what the Iraqis describe as their maritime exclusion zone, where there seems to be a normal flow of shipping.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Is the Minister aware that it was reassuring, apart from his last sentence, to note that the tone of his statement was inconsistent with any possibility of the Government being tempted to take part in yet another American fiasco in the middle east, this time in the Gulf? Will he recommend to his right hon. arid learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that he studies again the experience of a certain Admiral Duckworth in the Dardanelles?

Mr. Luce

Excluding the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I am glad that on the general thrust of what he said about where the British Government's priorities should be in this matter we are in agreement. All our efforts should be devoted with the international community and those who have more influence than we may have in this particular set of circumstances to seeking a diplomatic solution. We have a United Nations resolution and we are trying to pursue that as vigorously as we can with the Community.

Mr. Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey)

Will my hon. Friend, whose family name enjoys respect on both sides of the Gulf, remind both Iraq and Iran that the Chinese leadership has frequently made it clear that it regards the prime strategic aims of the Soviet Union as being the closing of the Straits of both Hormuz and Malacca, and that if the Straits of Hormuz become closed for any reason the only long-term beneficiary will be Communist Russia, and that that would be deeply repellent to the whole Islamic world?

Mr. Luce

Indeed. That is why it is all the more important that we put all our efforts into supporting any international effort for a diplomatic solution to the problem and for mediation between Iraq and Iran. It is essential that the Gulf area remains stable, and that the part of the Gulf that is now stable should remain so and should not be subject to exploitation by outside powers.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already said that there is an important debate to follow. I propose to allow questions to go on for not longer than 10 minutes and hope to be able to accommodate all hon. Members during that time.

Sir Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

Have the Government any information as to whether ships penetrating the so-called maritime exclusion zone of the Iraqis are covered by insurance?

Mr. Luce

It is not for me to answer that. It is for them to decide whether they should be covered by insurance. It is up to each party. As regards the specific ship, I believe that it was.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

Would it not be unwise for the United Kingdom to react too strongly to this particular incident? Will my hon. Friend reject the inflammatory talk of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)? These are not territorial waters but a war zone well known to everyone where both parties are concerned with their own interests in pursuing that war. The incident was within the territorial waters of one of them and in international law we have no right whatsoever to intervene.

Mr. Luce

I repeat that we think that this incident is serious and to be deplored. That being said, and looking at the wider picture, we must see it in perspective. There have been a number of attacks over many months by Iraqis on shipping in general in this area of the northern Gulf. There is nothing new in that sense. As far as we know, the rest of the Gulf remains stable with a normal shipping flow. There is no change in the situation.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a large part of the problem is the insistence of the Iranians that vessels must go into Bandar Khomeini where the danger is greatest rather than into Bandar Abbas where things are much safer? Will he consider getting together with the other OECD nations in order to forbid flag carriers from going to the more dangerous port so that the Iranians, who depend very much on imports, will take a more sensible view?

Mr. Luce

I will give serious consideration to what my hon. Friend has said. I should have thought that, as a result of particular incidents and others in the area, many shipping companies would make careful note of this if they wanted to continue trading with Iran.

Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)

Since this dreadful war is now in its fourth year, with hundreds of thousands of casualties and now suggestions of the use of chemical weapons, is it not time that the Western powers tried immediately, in conjunction with Eastern countries, to set up an arms embargo?

Mr. Luce

We are now well into the fourth year of the war, the numbers of casualties on both sides have been devastating and we hope very much that they will come to their senses and bring an end to the war. I repeat that our policy is one of neutrality and a refusal to sell lethal arms to either side. We believe that it would be both constructive and helpful if all nations followed that policy.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

Will my hon. Friend qualify his use of the words "lethal arms"? What are lethal arms and what are not? Will he confirm that we are not supplying arms of any sort to either side? Will he also confirm that we have no supplied mustard gas to the Iraqis, which the Iranians have accused us of doing?

Will he also say what further positive initiative the United Kingdom is making at the United Nations and what discussions it is having with its European partner, France, about the latter's supply of arms to Iraq?

Mr. Luce

Our policy is not to sell any arms that can be used for lethal purposes to either side. As to chemicals, we have already made our position absolutely clear. The allegation that Britain is selling chemical weapons to Iraq is completely untrue. Indeed, in 1959, no less than 25 years ago, Britain eradicated all its stocks, and we are taking a leading part in Geneva in an attempt to achieve an agreement on the control of chemicals as weapons. We will pursue that. We take these allegations very seriously indeed.

As regards the United Nations and our contact with France, all I can say is that we urge all other nations not to sell lethal arms to either country.

Mr. Nigel Forman (Carshalton and Wallington)

Is it not clear that this is just the latest incident in a long, tragic and brutal war between two countries? Is it not also clear that Her Majesty's Government are right to redouble their diplomatic efforts to achieve a solution? Would it be possible to consider an Islamic mediator in this dispute? Is that something that the Government are proposing? Is there any chance of the Government playing a part with their European partners in bringing about a solution?

Mr. Luce

Of course, my hon. Friend is right about the main emphasis being on the diplomatic side. I must remind him that over the three and a half years since the war began there have been numerous attempts by several Islamic countries, both singly and in groups, to mediate between the two sides. Each attempt has failed. Further discussions are currently taking place between Islamic nations on the possibility of further mediation and talks are taking place at the United Nations. I hope that both these efforts will result in some progress.

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington)

Have the Government any intention of approaching the Iraqi Government with a view to obtaining compensation for the damage caused to the British ship?

Mr. Luce

That is a matter for the parties concerned, although obviously, after we have investigated and have received an explanation that we demanded from the Iraqi Government this morning, we have to reserve the right to compensation in due course.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East)

Contrary to the quite extraordinary comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) a few minutes ago, is it not true that, quite rightly, the Government are not in a position to take positive action other than to make diplomatic representations and that this is precisely what they are doing?

Mr. Luce

My hon. Friend is right. That leads back to the point that ships go to that part of the Gulf at their own risk. We cannot nanny everybody. People must make their own decisions. However, the Government are in touch with the General Council of British Shipping, and the latter has given repeated warnings of the risks to ships which go to that part of the Gulf.

Mr. George Robertson

May I underline my message to the Minister, which is that, if the Government are considering a reaction to this deplorable incident, it should be in the form of a diplomatic initiative, ideally through the Security Council of the United Nations and involving both the super powers which have considerable interests in the area? May I press him on the question of the delay between this incident taking place and the British Government saying that they knew of it? Despite the need for radio silence, an extremely long time elapsed before the Government learnt of something that could have turned out to be a very serious incident involving a large number of fatalities. If it is true that it took seven days for us to know about it, what steps are now being taken to ensure that in the future we know a lot sooner than that?

Mr. Luce

We knew that there had been an attack on shipping in general on 1 March, involving a number of ships in a convoy moving near the port itself. What we did not know until yesterday was that there had been an attack on a British registered vessel.

I agree with the first part of the hon. Member's question, that the incident itself, one of many that have occurred in the northern Gulf, will be repeated until there is a successful resolution of the war between Iran and Iraq. The only way to bring to an end incidents of this sort is to achieve success on the diplomatic side, and that is where all our priorities are directed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the statement. Will you confirm that there has been no change in the procedure for applications for private notice questions or in the custom that these matters should not be discussed until they are before the House? I was led to believe that the principle is that if an hon. Member applies to ask a private notice question it is a matter between the Member and the Chair because there is always the possibility that the application will be refused. It seems that on this occasion—perhaps not through insolence but mere naivety on the part o f the leader of the alliance—that rule has been broken. I wondered whether the principle still applied.

Mr. Speaker

The general principle enunciated by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is absolutely right. I know of no breach of confidentiality between my office and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), or, I may say, any other hon. Member who might have put in a private notice question on this subject.