§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement about matters connected with the shooting incident in St. James's square on 17 April.
On 25 April, I reported to the House the facts of the initial incident, and subsequent events up to the time of that statement. Today I shall complete my report of the events. I shall also deal with the public order issues connected with demonstrations and state how I intend to use my powers for the immigration control of certain nationals in future. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will then give an account of our dealings with the Libyan people's bureau and the Libyan authorities in Tripoli. He will also deal with the steps that have been and will be taken in the diplomatic field in response to those events.
On the aftenoon of Tuesday 24 April, Mr. Bagdadi, a member of the so-called revolutionary committee who had not been in the bureau at the time of the incident, was deported. On Friday 27 April, Mr. Matouk, another member of the revolutionary committee, was also deported.
On the evening of 25 April, a representative of the Libyan authorities, Colonel Shaibi, arrived in this country to discuss the arrangements for the departure from this country of those in the Libyan diplomatic buildings in London. The discussions relating to that were also attended by a Saudi diplomat as a representative of the power nominated to look after Libyan interests here after the breach of diplomatic relations. Colonel Shaibi pressed that the Libyan authorities should retain the use of one of their buildings after Sunday 29 April, but it was made clear to him that all the official premises were to be closed from Sunday night. The Libyans were also told that, after midnight on 29 April, when the buildings ceased to be diplomatic premises, the police would require to search them to satisfy themselves that no weapons or explosives were inside and that the buildings were safe. They were told that a representative of the protecting power—the Saudi Arabian Government—could be present if they wished. They were informed that, as a matter of safety, arrangements would have to be made to ensure that those leaving the people's bureau building were unarmed; and that they would be asked to answer questions to assist the police in investigating the murder of WPC Fletcher.
During the course of Thursday 26 April, the Libyans removed their diplomatic bags from the bureau building. On the same day some 112 people consisting of the families of Libyan diplomats, as well as some diplomatic staff from the buildings other than that in St. James's square, left the country on a Libyan-Arab Airlines flight. Late on the evening of Thursday 26 April, the detailed departure arrangements for those inside the bureau were finalised. Those arrangements were put into effect on the following day, Friday 27 April. The 30 people in the Libyan people's bureau left the building in groups of five, beginning at about 9.50 am. After they had left the building, the police made sure that they were not carrying explosives or weapons. The search was carried out by the 196 use of electronic devices. The whole operation was witnessed by representatives of the Saudi Arabian, Syrian and Turkish embassies.
The 30 people who came out of the building were then driven, accompanied by the diplomatic observers, to the Civil Service college at Sunningdale, where they arrived shortly before noon. After an initial explanation of the procedure to be adopted during the remainder of the day, the police then proceeded with their inquiries, witnessed by two of the diplomatic observers. The identity of each of the Libyans was established by reference to their passports and other documents. They were invited to provide a full set of fingerprints, but declined to do so. They were then invited by the police to answer a number of questions. Each Libyan was questioned by two police officers using interpreters where necessary. Throughout the whole of that process, the diplomatic observers were free to go wherever they wished in the building. With the questioning completed, and the aircraft at Heathrow ready to return them to Libya, the group were escorted by the police to Heathrow, immigration formalities having been completed at Sunningdale. The aircraft left Heathrow at 7.30 pm.
At 4.10 pm yesterday afternoon the police entered the former bureau building through the back door, which was opened in the presence of a representative of the Saudi Arabian embassy by means of a rifle shot. The building was first examined by Royal Engineers and anti-terrorist squad explosives experts who satisfied themselves that it was safe, and was subsequently searched by anti-terrorist squad police officers for evidential purposes. That search is continuing. So far, two hand guns and a quantity of ammunition have been discovered in the course of the search of the former bureau premises. Firearms residue has been found on the carpet below the window from which the weapon was believed to have been fired and a spent cartridge case of the same calibre as the weapon used on 17 April has been found in the same room. Elsewhere in the building, the police have found accessories for submachine guns of the same calibre.
As I made clear last Wednesday, the view of the police was that they would not be able to obtain evidence to sustain a prosecution for the murder of WPC Fletcher without the co-operation of those concerned in the bureau. None of the police inquiries since then, whether at Sunningdale, St. James's square or elsewhere, or these discoveries, have altered the position. The police remain of the view that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution against any individual. None the less, they are of the view that it is likely that the murder was committed by one of two people who were in the bureau. Both of these possessed diplomatic immunity. They therefore could not have been prosecuted under English law even if the necessary evidence had been available. The questioning at Sunningdale and other evidence obtained may well, however, provide information relevant to the investigation of bombings in London and Manchester in respect of which some people have already been charged. The information obtained at Sunningdale continues to be assessed.
Since my last statement to the House, I have been considering whether the law on demonstrations and marches, as it applies to such events held by foreign nationals, or generally, can helpfully be amended. Neither the police nor I have power to ban a static demonstration in advance.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Unless they are by miners.
§ Mr. BrittanHowever, the police already have extensive powers, in pursuance of their duty to preserve the peace, to regulate the conduct of demonstrations and to prevent a demonstration assembling, or to disperse one already assembled, if they have reasonable cause to believe that such action is necessary to preserve or restore public order. As to marches, the Public Order Act 1936 provides powers to impose conditions or, if those will be inadequate, to ban the holding of public processions, in order to prevent serious public disorder.
I understand the feelings which often lie behind suggestions that demonstrations and marches by foreign nationals should be subject to special controls and, possibly, prohibition. I doubt, however, whether it would be right for either the police or the Government to be empowered to pick and choose which demonstrations were permissible and which were not, either in relation to the nationality of those concerned or the subject about which they were demonstrating. We should remember who committed the offence on 17 April—the demonstrators in St. James's square were the victims, not the perpetrators, of violence. But we must be certain that there are adequate powers to prevent warring factions from fighting their battles on the streets of London, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) very properly said last week. The House will know that I have in hand a comprehensive review of public order law, including the issue of the control and regulation of static demonstrations. The conclusion of the review, and the announcement of the results, will now be expedited.
I have also considered what additional immigration measures can be taken, quickly, and within the present rules, to bring home the fact that we are not prepared to tolerate nationals of other countries bringing on to the streets of Britain violence for their own political ends. The House will already be aware of the instructions that I have given to my immigration officials in dealing with Libyans following the break in diplomatic relations. I said then that I would not hesitate to use my powers of removal or personal certification if I were satisfied that there was evidence that the presence here of any individual was against the national interest. I can inform the House that I have today signed detention orders against a further six Libyan nationals whom it is intended to deport.
As far as Libyan nationals generally are concerned, a number of further restrictions will now be introduced for any who, under the rules, might be considered for visas. Visitors will receive permissions to stay of shorter duration, adapted to the circumstances of each case; measures will be taken to ensure that those admitted observe the conditions imposed. Libyan students who come to Britain must be bona fide students, and we expect them to pursue their studies, not indulge in violence. Yet there is reason to believe that some of them have been prone to do just that. I intend, therefore, to tighten up immigration control affecting them. Any Libyan student who qualifies for admission under the rules will not normally be given permission to stay for more than one term at a time; anyone failing to meet the requirements in any respect will be refused an extension; each application or reapplication will be accompanied by stringent checks. In particular, we shall have to be fully satisfied that a 198 student is in fact properly pursuing a full-time course of study. Similar restrictive measures will apply to other categories of applicant as the rules allow.
At present, foreign nationals are normally required to register with the police on arrival only if their period of stay is more than six months. In view of the announcements I have made, however, any Libyan national seeking entry under these new restrictions will be liable to register with the police. There must be no misunderstanding by those involved of the swift and serious consequences of future misbehaviour.
Libyan nationals required to register with the police will be asked to sign a declaration recognising the consequences of their indulging in violence for political reasons, and their intention not to do so. This document will be affixed to the police registration form. This should also be a warning to the nationals of other countries. I am ready to apply similar restrictions to others who demonstrably bring into Britain their own political violence.
In setting out these measures, which will be supported by appropriate instructions to visa-issuing posts abroad, I have been concerned not to undermine our tradition as a country of safe refuge and asylum. No one from a country to which such restrictions apply who wishes peacefully to express his views in public has anything to fear. But those who abuse our hospitality with violence will cease to receive it.
§ Mr. Willie W. Hamilton (Fife, Central)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point of order now, but I think that it is rather important. I notice that. as has happened before, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who is a Back Bencher, has a copy of the statement in advance. He has the statement in his possession. I have noticed this on previous occasions. It is well-known in the House that he is paid by the police. If he has a pre-copy of the statement, it is a gross abuse of the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have to say that I know nothing about that.
§ Mr. HamiltonFurther—
§ Mr. James Tinn (Redcar)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you at least agree to look into the matter so that it can be regularised, if anything irregular has happened?
§ Mr. SpeakerYes, I will certainly do that. I think that the same treatment should be accorded to all hon. Members.
§ Mr. Kaufmanrose—
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that many statements of one kind or another are made on a multitude of subjects, and that during the past several weeks statements have been made about the mining industry, and so on, is it possible for the 15 miners' Members of Parliament to get copies so that they can have advance warning, and should not the Leader of the House get up and explain this conduct?
§ Mr. SpeakerWe have a very heavy day in front of us. I have already said to the House that I will look into the matter.
§ Mr.Alan Williams (Swansea, West)Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask for a statement at this moment, but I think that, by the time that we have finished both statements this afternoon, the Leader of the House should be prepared to make a statement to the House on future conduct in this regard.
§ Mr. KaufmanMay I first thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the response that you have made to the point of order put to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)?
Her Majesty's Opposition wish to congratulate the police on the skill and courage that they have shown in conducting the siege at the Libyan people's bureau, in the efficiency of the actions which ended the siege and relieved this country of the presence of those who had been in the bureau, and in the potentially dangerous search of the building.
That having been said, the fact must be faced by the House that we all have suffered a national humiliation with a woman police constable having been shot down in cold blood, and her colleagues in the force obliged to escort her murderer in safety out of the country. By 17 April, those consequences were unavoidable, but the British people want to know whether that disaster, combined with a personal and family tragedy, could have been avoided or prevented and that any future repetition of such unacceptable events can be prevented.
The Home Secretary said in his statement today that he had completed his report to the House. He has come nowhere near doing so. Why was the Home Office so complacent about the activities of the bureau? The police issued a warning on 1 March about the danger of Libyan action. After the London and Manchester bombings a few days later, why did a Home Office Minister tell the House of Lords:
As to the question of the bureau, I understand that its proceedings and status differ somewhat from some of the other diplomatic institutions in this capital. But, at the moment, that is not causing undue embarrassment.— [Official Report, House of Lords, 5 April 1984; Vol. 450, c. 795.WPC Fletcher was murdered from that building 12 days later. Do the Government have any information about how the weapon that killed her and other weapons got into the bureau? Will the Home Secretary now tell us whether a telex order from Tripoli was intercepted the day before the murder? If there was such an order, when was it decoded? Was it decoded in time for it to constitute a warning in advance of the demonstration or in advance of the Heathrow bombing on 20 April? If there was such a message, what did it say? Did it order that demonstrators should be fired on? Did it order that the police should be fired on? Did it order that a bombing and sabotage campaign should be launched? Did police surveillance of the bureau during the siege overhear discussion as to how the orders should be interpreted?
We are relieved to hear from the Home Secretary that the Government do not contemplate taking powers to ban the right of free demonstration in this country, as such a ban would mark the ultimate victory of Colonel Gaddafi.
On whose advice did the police allow Libyans without diplomatic immunity to leave the country? Was it on the advice of the Foreign Office? The Home Office has been less than clear about the position of Libyans remaining in this country. What about the Libyan nationals whom our 200 armed forces have been training? On 29 March the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in a written answer:
The training being provided in this case has been requested by the Libyan Government and is compatible with British defence interests.—[Official Report, 29 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 296.] Clearly, such compatibility no longer exists. Have all those persons now been sent packing?What about the 280 Libyan apprentices being trained by British Airways at its training school and in workshops and hangars and who are based at Heston, next to Heathrow airport? Do they have access to the airport itself? Many of them are said to be highly motivated politically and all have the opportunity to carry out dangerous sabotage operations. Are they being sent away? Are there other trainees?
The Home Secretary in his statement today has told the House and the country little of what they need and are entitled to know. Only an independent inquiry can allay public disquiet. Her Majesty's Opposition demand an independent inquiry into the whole of this grave and damaging episode.
§ Mr. BrittanOn the first point, I am sure that the House will wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the police. Indeed, I have said very much the same thing on several occasions recently.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the whole episode could have been avoided. On the intelligence questions, I cannot add to what has already been said, for reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time today. Nevertheless, certain matters can be dealt with without breaching that. On the activities of the bureau, the suggestion by the Libyan diplomats that they would not be responsible for the consequences if the demonstration was not prevented was entirely in line with their general attitude of trying to muzzle demonstrations protesting against the Gaddafi regime. There was nothing special about the way in which it was put. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, who has expressed strong views about the right to demonstrate, would have regarded it as appropriate, even if it were possible, to ban the demonstration on the strength of representations from Libyan diplomats, when it was on a very small scale and easy to police.
With regard to the bombs a month or so earlier, as I explained last week, there was no clear link between the bureau and the perpetrators of those outrages. Four people were arrested and are being prosecuted for what occurred. A further six, against whom there was not sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution, have been deported. Even in the case of those six, a clear link was not established between them and the bureau. In those circumstances, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is showing that the greatest of his many qualities is hindsight when he suggests that it might have been sensible or proper to take exceptional measures in relation to a peaceable demonstration.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I had any information about how the weapons got into the bureau. I am afraid that I do not have that information. He also asked about Libyans undergoing training with the armed forces. I understand that two Libyan midshipmen who had been studying at the Royal Naval college, Dartmouth, have been told by the Ministry of Defence that their training is at an end. I have therefore thought it right to 201 curtail the duration of their stay, and if they fail to leave voluntarily by 7 May they will be deported. Three further Libyans attempted to enter the United Kingdom at the weekend to embark on a separate course for midshipmen at Dartmouth, but the Ministry of Defence was no longer willing to provide places for them on the course and they were accordingly refused entry.
§ Sir Paul Bryan (Booth ferry)Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware—
§ Mr. Kaufmanrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Not at this stage.
§ Sir Paul BryanDoes my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the British public are fully aware, from the experience of several of our NATO allies who have Libyans within their borders, that it is impossible to conduct normal civilised diplomatic relations with the present Libyan Government? Is he aware that there is therefore considerable admiration for the good sense and effectiveness with which the Government have dealt with a sad and very tricky situation?
§ Mr. BrittanI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words of support, which are deeply appreciated.
§ Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)Is the Home Secretary aware that many people hearing the statement and the measures that he has now taken will feel that this is a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted—or rather, been escorted out of the country? He will recall telling the House that it was
not the practice to give details of intelligence matters".He went on to say, however:no specific information that would lead us to believe that such an incident would occur when it did was in our hands before the event.—[Official Report, 25 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 747.] The right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are now refusing to explain what was meant by "in our hands". In whose hands? A United States Administration official has said that the Government obtained the information through their own sources and not from the Americans. We are entitled to know when that information was given and to whom it was passed.The reference to the Security Commission announced to the House in January 1964 by the then Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas Home, did not accurately record its terms of reference. They were not changed by the procedures announced to the House in 1969 and are tailored exactly to the present circumstances. On any reasonable reading of what the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have said, there has been a breach of intelligence; the House is entitled to an independent investigation by a source that will not prejudice the intelligence services of this country and will not cause any anxiety to our friends or reveal to our enemies information that they should not know.
§ Mr. BrittanIf the right hon. Gentleman today held the position of Foreign Secretary, which he once held, he would not for a second be making such suggestions. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear in her letter to the right hon. Gentleman that she was not proposing to add to what I had said on intelligence matters in the House last week. That is a position I share.
§ Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)Leaving aside the obsession of the hindsight merchants and headline hunters 202 on the Opposition Benches with sensitive intelligence matters on which no useful report could be made in public—
§ Mr. Onslow—does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a role for a Select Committee of the House to help his Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in their examination of the immunities enjoyed by diplomats and the interlocking questions of the Vienna convention and the public order laws? If that were done, it would be helpful to public and Parliament alike. Is not this a matter in which Parliament should be able to play a full part?
§ Mr. BrittanI entirely agree that there is absolutely no disposition or desire whatever on the part of the Government to exclude the normal parliamentary procedures looking into this type of matter. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be referring to some of the points that my hon. Friend has just made.
§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Morley and Leeds, South)Now that action has been taken against the Libyan representatives in this country in the light of the death in St. James's square, has not the time come to take action aginst other countries which give passports to any Arabs from any part of the Middle East, whether or not they are citizens, and whose airlines indulge in activities that are known to be against our interests? Before it is too late, let us do something about nationals of other countries, as well as the Libyans.
§ Mr. BrittanDiplomatic action is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who will make a statement later. As to the suggestion that the nationals of any other countries are seeking to enter the United Kingdom for nefarious purposes, I know that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that we shall be very alert to the need for increased vigilance in that regard and that we will not hesitate to use our powers at home to seek to avert it.
§ Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)While one welcomes my right hon. and learned Friend's decision to look again at the law on demonstrations, is not that largely irrelevant in this case, bearing in mind the fact that, for some time now, Libyan dissidents and Libyan students generally living in this country have been in fear of their lives? There have been numerous attacks involving deaths and woundings not only here but in western Europe. When last week my right hon. and learned Friend referred to there being no specific information about dangers if this demonstration went ahead, did that not imply that there was some information? Unless these questions can be answered satisfactorily on the Floor of the House, does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree—I am entirely with him in his generally robust approach to the whole matter—that there is a strong case for setting up an inquiry of Privy Councillors or whoever to establish exactly what happened and to ensure that it never happens again?
§ Mr. BrittanI cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about why she does not think that an inquiry would be the most useful way forward. However, in many other respects I welcome what my hon. Friend has said because—it is necessary to correct what 203 the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said—with regard to static demonstrations I expressed some reservations about the desirability or feasibility of a ban. I did not say that it was excluded, rather that it would be included in the review.
My hon. Friend raises a different point—threats to dissident Libyans in this country. There is a great difference between bombings and matters of that kind and demonstrations. Different considerations arise. Apart from anything else, the objects of demonstrations—both for those who take part in them and those who seek to oppose them—are open and public, whereas the essence of bombings is that the cowardly people who perpetrate such actions hope that they will not be discovered. The handling of the two issues requires a different approach, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to ventilate that difference.
§ Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that those of us who have been working for the best part of 20 years for better relations with the Arab world are no less appalled than everyone else by these appalling developments? Perhaps we are even more disappointed and disturbed than most other people. Do not the Government now consider it advisable to mop up and expel the reported 200 members of revolutionary committees who are supposedly still at work in Britain?
§ Mr. BrittanAs I am sure the House will appreciate, the hon. Gentleman's first remarks will be all the more appreciated, given his stance in dealing with these matters. As to mopping up and expelling 200 people, we must proceed in an orderly and lawful way, not indiscriminately. Last week, I said that I would not hestitate to use my powers to deport those whose presence here there was reason to believe would not be in the continued interests of the United Kingdom. Obviously, in the intervening period, I have dealt with the actual departure of the members of the bureau and related matters. None the less, in that time we have found six people against whom it has been possible credibly and responsibly to take action. I shall not hesitate to do the same with any others, however numerous or few they may be, but I would be reluctant to give an indiscriminate commitment in relation to a number as large as 200.
§ Sir William Clark (Croydon, South)Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of the British people have the greatest admiration for the way in which the police force handled the St. James's square affair? Is he further aware that, given all the difficulties surrounding the Libyan episode and bearing in mind the number of British nationals in Libya, he has earned the admiration of many people for the cool, calm and restrained way in which he has handled it?
Having said that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the right of British people to demonstrate peaceably is inviolate and sacrosanct and should be preserved? But surely it is high time to look at the law of demonstrations. If non-British characters want to demonstrate, they should do so not in this country but in the country from which they came. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, because in no circumstances would we as Britishers be allowed to demonstrate in Libya.
§ Mr. BrittanI share and appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks about the police and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks about my own handling of the matter. In the context of what occurred last week, when thinking about the right to demonstrate one naturally thinks about a particular sort of demonstration by people of particular nationality. Although we shall look into the whole question of static demonstrations, I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether he would wish to be associated with a change in the law that would make it impossible for Russian dissidents to demonstrate outside the Soviet Embassy, however appallingly the Soviet Government behaved. We should want to think long and hard before doing that.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)Why, given the known threats to Libyans living in this country, were certain Libyans known to be closely associated with Colonel Gaddafi allowed to remain here on student visas when it was well known that they had not enrolled for, or had not taken part in, the courses for which they were originally admitted? In particular, why was Abdul Bagdadi, who has since been deported, allowed to remain in this country for so long when he had not taken up the course for which he had been admitted?
§ Mr. BrittanIt is important that we should have more information on whether students are doing what they came here to do. It is exactly for that reason that I have tightened up the regulations affecting Libyan students. I know that the hon. Gentleman is proud of his concern for civil liberties. There is no doubt that tightening up on students in that way, quite apart from imposing additional burdens on the police and immigration authorities, would mean a more restrictive regime. It is not something on which one can embark lightly. I have done it in this case, and I shall not hesitate to do it again. However, other considerations are also relevant.
§ Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)Can my right hon. and learned Friend say a little more about the problem of immigration control? Is not one of the great weaknesses that the sophisticated terrorist has the opportunity to go to any part of the world and to travel on any airline under almost any identity? Is not one problem our ineffectiveness in identifying such people when they pass through immigration control?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the question of diplomatic immunity? The British public are extremely worried that any crazed person with a diplomatic passport can kill at will.
§ Mr. BrittanThe question of diplomatic immunity and its consequences are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. I know that he will want to deal with them when he addresses the House later.
§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)I do not want my question to be misunderstood by the House. I share the sense of outrage felt by all hon. Members, and I am appalled by what has happened. I support the Home Secretary in the strong action that he has taken. Nevertheless, may I warn of the dangers of this degenerating into a witch hunt against all Arabs in Britain? We are right to take action against those who are a threat, but let us maintain a sense of balance and not be dragged into a witch hunt. The Home Secretary is right in the steps that he has taken, but let us not go too far and too wide on this issue.
§ Mr. BrittanI assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no witch hunt. The measures that I have announced are controlled, limited and designed to deal with the particular objectives. As I explained in the answer to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—whose sympathy for the Arab cause is unrivalled—we shall not initiate a general sweep-up. However, I shall deal with those against whom there is material evidence to show that their continued presence in Britain is against the public good.
§ Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement that there will be satisfactory control of all Libyan students, and that they will have to report regularly to the police. What will he do to ban and maintain the keeping out of all Libyan diplomats and the 11 so-called diplomats to ensure that they can never return to Britain?
§ Mr. BrittanThe immigration officials will be given the information necessary to secure that objective. Anyone in that category who is tempted to return must bear in mind that the immunity extended has now expired and that they are open to arrest, investigation and, if necessary, appropriate prosecution.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Since his last statement, has the Home Secretary had any opportunity to double-check the technical advice that he was given that electric scanners and magnometers are not much use in detecting guns and ammunition in a diplomatic bag? If his advice is correct, what on earth are we all doing checking in our bags at Heathrow?
§ Mr. BrittanThe answer is that either the hon. Gentleman has secured very special privileges from the airlines that he patronises, or his bag is significantly different in size from that of many diplomatic bags, which can amount to actual crates. Whether on diplomatic and other grounds it is appropriate to X-ray diplomatic bags is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary—[Interruption.] I am answering the hon. Gentleman and it is a point well worth noting.
The efficacy of such an action is a matter with which I can deal. I am advised that modern X-ray equipment is highly efficient in detecting the presence of metal objects in a bag. If a weapon was the only metal object in a diplomatic bag, it would be possible to identify it. It would be naive to suppose that those intent on importing weapons would not seek to disguise their presence by, for example, enclosing them in metal containers whose image on an X-ray screen might appear to be wholly innocuous. The success of such scanning relies on the ability to open bags to distinguish between innocent metal objects and those more sinister. The prohibition on the opening of diplomatic bags leads us to the conclusion that scanning procedures would be of limited value.
§ Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)In the light of the unhappy events in St. James's square, is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the police have access to adequate supplies of equipment and weapons to control such events? Is he satisfied that the police whose duty it is to protect diplomatic premises have adequate access to the equipment necessary for such duties?
§ Mr. BrittanI am not aware of any inadequacy. If anyone suggests that, I shall be happy to look into the matter.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)How can the Government claim security issues in defence of what has been described by my hon. Friends as a cover-up? Is it not well known that transmissions from HMS Conqueror were sent to GCHQ during the Falklands dispute, as was the case with transmissions from the United States during that dispute? Were not those equally security issues? What is the difference on this occasion?
§ Mr. BrittanI am not proposing to deal with questions relating to the Falkland Islands, nor have I anything to add to what I have already said about the intelligence aspects of this matter.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)Reverting to my right hon. and learned. Friend's detailed statement, does not the forensic evidence that has now been obtained from the bureau—the firearms, residue and powder stains—show clearly that Yvonne Fletcher was the first British police officer to be murdered by a diplomat to whom the Foreign Office had given accreditation? What compensation does the Foreign Office contemplate giving to her family?
On the question of the two diplomats, one of whom the police believe was the murderer of the police officer, as and when they can identify him or her—as I believe they will—do the Government intend to seek to ensure that that person is put on trial in Libya for the murder, or that that person's extradition is sought so that he or she may be tried for murder in Britain?
§ Mr. BrittanI am afraid that we do not have extradition arrangements with Libya. A trial in Libya would be a matter for the Libyan authorities, and all hon. Members will have their own views about the likelihood of such a trial taking place and its probable outcome.
The question of compensation from the Foreign Office is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
§ Mr. SkinnerWill the Home Secretary guarantee that no defence certificates are being issued for the sale of arms to Libya, and that no defence certificates will be issued in future?
§ Mr. BrittanWe shall not embark upon any new defence contract with Libya, and existing contracts will be reviewed.
§ Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)Should we not draw a distinction between the expression of opinion in the media by foreign nationals either resident in or visiting Britain, and political demonstrations in our streets by foreign nationals, which is a wholly different matter and involves police protection for both public order and the persons concerned? Does not the tradition of asylum in most civilised countries carry with it an abstention from political activity by those who have been granted the right of asylum?
Is this not an historic tradition in civilised countries? Should not the Home Secretary consider carefully whether the transition from expression of opinion in the media to demonstration on the streets is not a licence to those granted the hospitality of this country, which has no real basis in our history or in normal international practice?
§ Mr. BrittanAsylum is a technical term governed by international agreements, and the vast majority, if not all, of those who have been engaged in demonstrations are not people who have been granted asylum. I shall, of course, 207 take into account my hon. Friend's views in the review of public order legislation on which we have embarked. I still have grave reservations about making a distinction between rights and freedoms that are exercisable by our nationals and ones exercisable by those foreign nationals who have a legal right to be in this country.
As we are talking about political demonstrations, I must say that politics comes into it. If a large number of eastern Europeans had been arrested for demonstrating outside the Russian embassy when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and I had said that that was exactly as it should be because they had no business to engage in such demonstrations, I do not think that I should have had much support either from the Benches behind me or those in front of me.
§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)The House will have noted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that those leaving the Libyan people's bureau were individually searched by electronic means. Was he informed that that was in accordance with the Vienna convention? If so, why would it not also have been in accordance with that convention to have searched electronically the bags that left the embassy to try to avoid the outrageous export of the weapon used to murder the woman police constable?
§ Mr. BrittanI am advised that the personal search, conducted in the way that I described, was permitted under international and domestic law. As for electronic scanning, I explained in answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) why I did not think that would be a practical advantage. On the legality of the practice, I explained last week that there were two views, but that the overwhelming state practice, apart from the legality of it, was not to engage in it.
§ Mr. KaufmanIs the Secretary of State aware that, if the Government take fresh powers to ban demonstrations by foreign nationals, they will be conceding to Colonel Gaddafi the very objective that the St. James's square shootings were intended to achieve? The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave no answer to my question about the 280 apprentices being trained by British Airways. What is being done about them?
Above all, why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman so stubborn and recalcitrant about providing information on the telex order from Tripoli, alleged to have been sent on 16 April? If it was sent, the Libyans know what was in it. The press—The Times, the Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Mail and other newspapers—have been full of references to it. If this House and the country are to be deprived of the truth about it, many people will come to the conclusion that the Goverment must be engaged in a cover-up. Only an independent inquiry can set the minds of the public at rest.
§ Mr. BrittanIn answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, I have to say again that I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said. It does not seem to me that the fact that various allegations have been ventilated in various newspapers makes the consideration of security, which the Prime Minister explained at Question Time, any the less appropriate or valid.
Regarding demonstrations, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of the view that he and his party will take on this aspect of the matter, and that will be given appropriate weight.
British Airways has received apprentices from Libya for some years, purely as a commercial arrangement. If I have any reason whatever to think that any of those apprentices are engaged in activities contrary to the national interest, I shall act towards them in the same way as I shall act towards any other Libyans.