§ 2.55 p.m.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm that authorisation has been given to the opening in London of an office for the Palestinian guerrilla movement; if so does not this unnecessarily augment the possibility of disturbances in England by a movement to which in the recent past the most violent and reprehensible actions have been attributed.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS)My Lords, authorisation was not needed under our law and none was granted. It has been made clear that the office would attract no kind of diplomatic or official recognition. Any application for a visa connected with the work proposed would be considered in the light of circumstances at the time. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary would not hesitate to use his powers to refuse admission to, or deport, any alien who there was reason to believe might engage in acts of violence, or encourage or incite such acts.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, is it to be understood from the Answer of the noble Viscount that Defence of the Realm regulations contain no power for the Government to exclude from recognised presence in this country bodies to whom reprehensible acts of violence of the worst kind have been attributed? Further, is it to be understood that at present bodies representing any of these either guerrilla or terrorist movements in any part of the world can freely come into this country, with the risk of inciting violence such as we have had in the past?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, bearing in mind the danger of being pedantic, I must explain to my noble friend first of all that I do not think that there are any such things as "Defence of the Realm regulations"; we have other powers. My right honourable friend has other powers under the Aliens Order, and these relate to people, not to organisations. Organisations cannot come in as such; they come in in the form of people, and it is over people that we have jurisdiction.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I ask whether the Government are really saying that terrorist organisations can seek asylum in this country without the Government's taking any action? May I further ask whether the Government would permit the militant wing of the I.R.A. to set up offices, or premises, or shops in this country and stand idly by?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I do not think that I am directly concerned in this Question with the I.R.A., but I will say what we can do about other terrorists and other organisations. My right honourable friend has very wide powers to prevent the arrival and admission into this country of people and also powers of deportation. One of the powers he has, which is spelt out in the Immigration Appeals rules and is inherent in his jurisdiction, is to refuse entry, or to deport in the interests of relations between the United Kingdom and any other country. That is a very wide power, and it is not the only one. It operates on people, and if there is any danger of the sort of thing that the noble Lord has mentioned happening, or any danger 1286 to our international relations, we have powers to act.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I just follow that up and ask the noble Viscount this question? What will happen in the event of British nationals manning the premises on behalf of these people?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, in that event there are powers in the police and in the criminal law, if there is any question of conspiracy or other criminal acts taking place, under which people could be arrested. But this must be hypothetical until any such thing has happened.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, are we to understand from the noble Viscount's Answer, and in the light of what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said yesterday about the British Government having signed a convention on hijacking, that if the organisations who have been involved wish to come here there is no way in which we in this country can fulfil the requirements of that convention?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSNo, my Lords, of course not. I keep trying to emphasise to the House—and I think that my noble friend Lord Ferrers said this yesterday—that it is not the organisations, but the people who are concerned in this matter. This is the situation: what is the differential between some of these organisations? I do not know, and I very much doubt whether other noble Lords do. It is much more important, and I would suggest right, to concern ourselves with the individuals concerned, over whom we have plenty of power. If there is any danger of the ICAO convention, if it comes about, being endangered by their presence in this country, we have full powers to act.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, certainly these organisations have claimed, and it has been proved, that they were part and parcel of hijacking and other terrorist operations. Would the noble Viscount look at this matter again, because I think it would be intolerable, and I do not think would be accepted by the country, that these organisations should be operating in London and in this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I have been looking at it all morning. Moreover, the noble Lord referred to "organisations", but the Question relates to only one organisation. The personnel who may or may not be involved in the running of any office, if and when one is set up, will be examined most carefully. It is their individual connection with this matter that we can control. I am sorry the noble Lord shakes his head, but I have no powers, and neither has my right honourable friend, to deal with organisations.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, I asked the noble. Viscount only to look.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, may I ask the Government whether they will not allow the Tupamaros organisation, and the organisation which in Germany has recently killed one of our civil servants, to come here and set up an office in London?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, we are empowered neither to allow any organisation to come and set up anything here, nor to disallow them.
§ LORD HANKEYMy Lords, is it not true that this is the organisation which was taking credit about two years ago for hijacking a. British aircraft and actually destroying it in Jordan; and are they not the same people who killed the Jordanian Ambassador? What assurance can the Government give us that this office will not be used for continuing activities of this sort, if not against British aircraft and people in England, then against other friendly countries' aircraft and personnel overseas?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, to the best of my knowledge and information, the answer to both of the questions is: No, it was not this organisation. However, this is why I emphasise the importance of referring to people rather than to organisations. But if there is any danger of this sort of thing happening we have full powers to deal with it, and I assure the noble Lord that we shall keep a very firm eye on the situation.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will have to accept what the noble Viscount has said with regard to his powers. Obviously 1288 he knows what he is talking about in that respect. But I hope he will pay attention to the obvious and deep concern which the House is feeling in regard to this matter, not merely in regard to this particular organisation but also in regard to others. Will he consider with his right honourable friend whether there are some further powers, which, while not introducing illiberal measures which would be alien here, would enable us to feel more confident?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord is most constructive. If I can get it established that at the present moment we cannot deal with organisations but only with people, that will be a very great step forward. Whether we should be able to deal with these in peace time is another matter, and I shall certainly consider with my right honourable friend whether we should take powers, but legislation would be required for this. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will take my word for it that we have an eye on the situation; that we are capable of using our powers, and if we have to do so we will.
§ LORD ROBBINSMy Lords, will the noble Viscount agree, therefore, that the apprehensions which have been expressed in various parts of the House have not been unreasonable?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I hope a certain amount was done yesterday by my noble friend Lord Ferrers to dispel some of the misapprehensions. The matter was also dealt with extensively in another place. Perhaps I may have assisted to-day; perhaps I may also, in the answers to further supplementary questions, have explained the situation so that we now see exactly where the powers are and where they are not; and perhaps I have given the House an assurance that in looking at the matter further we shall be able to consider whether anything further needs to be done.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, with the indulgence of the House, may I thank my noble friend for his correction of my slip about the difference between regulations and powers. Powers undoubtedly exist, but the regulations have ceased to exist. Since my noble friend emphasised the 1289 individual rather than the organisation, can he say at this moment whether the visit of Yassir Arafat, about which great apprehension has been expressed in the Press, is likely to be impeded?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I cannot of course say whether or not Mr. Yassir Arafat will apply for a visa to come to this country. So far he has not done so, and I think it would be highly insensitive of me at this stage to attempt to prejudge the decision which my right honourable friend might make upon any such application. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I really do not think I ought to go any further into this subject.
§ LORD BURNTWOODMy Lords, thanks to the noble Viscount's exposition about his powers, we understand what the position is. But may I ask whether his attention has been drawn to the news item issued by the International Air Transport Association about the extension of the punitive action to be taken by terrorist organisations all over the world, including airports from which El Al operates, which of course includes Heathrow?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I do not think I have had that specifically in mind. But I am grateful to the noble Lord, and if this becomes relevant to the consideration of any of the personnel concerned I shall certainly see that it is borne in mind.
§ VISCOUNT HANWORTHMy Lords, does the Minister fully appreciate the public relations aspect if an office is started here in England, perhaps with a number of advertisements in the papers and a large notice put up outside and, furthermore, with a feeling that there may be those in England whom we would not wish to deport but who might be fellow-travellers? That could give an immensely wrong impression abroad; and the fact that the Minister has powers might not be well understood by the general public.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I appreciate that this is a very difficult situation. What I think is wrong is to attempt to forestall in 1290 answers in this House, what might happen in the case of any particular alien who did something, or anybody in this country who might make himself subject to some sort of criminal charge. But I indicated one of the areas over which my right honourable friend has powers as to deportation. If somebody was so carrying on as to stir up violent antagonism among the inhabitants of this country, which could possibly lead to a breach of the peace and other things in this country, my right honourable friend's powers also go as far as being able to consider deporting such a person.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, does the noble Viscount imply that, if Her Majesty's Government refused entry to a poor demented girl for throwing a bottle of ink at a Cabinet Minister and damaging his suit, they are bound to refuse entry to known foreigners who openly advocate hijacking and assassination.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I really think that the question of the noble Lord, Lord Segal, illustrates profoundly the danger of generalising in particular cases. I can see nothing whatever in common between Miss Kwiatowski and some hypothetical person who might come in to man the P.L.O. office.
§ LORD ARWYNMy Lords, may we have a clear definition of the words "guerrilla" and "terrorist", because in my vocabulary a guerrilla is someone to be respected and a terrorist is not? There has been a confusion with terrorists during the whole of these questions and answers.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I think it was not I who used the terms "guerrilla" or "terrorist". I must refer the noble Lord to the Oxford English Dictionary, because I do not consider myself to be a semantic philosophist of the sort required.