§ 2.52 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the result of their inquiries into the structure and actions of the Palestine Liberation Organisation ; whether they are a body representing, or to which are affiliated, the major terrorist organisations FATAH, P.F.L.P., P.D.F.L.P., SAIKA, and the Arab Liberation Front ; whether their declared policy is the destruction of Israel ; and whether Her Majesty's Government will refuse to permit them to open an office in London or in Great Britain.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE)My Lords, the Palestine Liberation Organisation is a political organisation whose basic aim is—and I quote:
the establishment of a multi-national and multi-confessional State of Palestine".The P.L.O. is a member of the League of Arab States ; and its representatives attend sessions of the United Nations' General Assembly as observers. I understand that the organisations which the nobel Lord mentions do not accept the existence of Israel as a State and are affiliated to the P.L.O. Her Majesty's Government have not granted facilities or permission for setting up an office in this country, but there is no power in law to prevent organisations from establishing offices here.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, is not that an astonishing Answer? Do I understand the noble Baroness aright regarding these bodies which exist and advocate massacres, the massacring of children, irrespective of what country they happen to be in, murder and assassination generally? Is the noble Baroness saying that the P.L.O., to which these bodies are affiliated, and which indeed is a cover organisation for them, is a body that can possibly be allowed to open an office of 672 this kind, either in Common Law or in International Law, or in any other respect? Surely, something about this is seriously wrong. Is the noble Baroness aware that if such an office is opened, these machinations will be carried on within our own country for the purpose not only of killing people in Israel but of killing people all over the world, and preventing anything in the nature of an attack upon "sky-jacking"?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I can perfectly understand the noble Lord's concern. But the fact is, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said when he received only recently a deputation from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, that he has certain powers under the Aliens Order to refuse admission to, or to deport, any alien who there is reason to believe might engage in acts of violence or encourage or incite such acts. But, he says, the Palestine Liberation Organisation office will be carefully scrutinised and anyone who is permitted to come here must observe our laws, just like everyone else.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government would be very pleased if the P.R.O.—the Irish Provisionals—would set up an office in Tel Aviv?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, it would hardly be our responsibility if they set up an office in Tel Aviv.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, undertook that this matter would be looked at ; and would she give an assurance that it is being looked at? And would the noble Baroness answer the Question that is on the Order Paper: is it not a fact that the Palestine Liberation Organisation represents the various terrorist organisations which are mentioned in this Question?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, the Question specifically referred, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, accurately represented, to whether the P.L.O. was a body representing, or to which are affiliated, the various organisations ; and I made clear that the particular bodies referred to in the Question are affiliated to the P.L.O. On the 673 other main question, as to whether the matter is being examined, I think the point at issue the other day was whether it would be necessary to alter legislation. This question is being examined at this time. As I understand it, there are very great difficulties because organisations could come into this country under other names.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, would the noble Baroness accept that both in this House and in another place there is very deep concern about the establishment of this office, particularly in the light of its very close association with the terrorist organisations? Would the noble Baroness press on with the examination, which I recognise is a very difficult matter, and will she undertake to give the House a Statement when the Government have in fact made up their mind in this matter?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, in fact the responsibility for any change in the law would come under my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. But he has pointed out, again to the deputation he received from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, that there would be real difficulties in preparing—and I quote:
effective legislation to control activities of organisations as such ".
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she will bear in mind that this is not necessarily a matter of aliens' coming into the country? This office could easily be set up by British nationals who are sympathetic to the terrorist movement.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, that is perfectly true. If I may again quote from this letter, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary makes it perfectly clear that the criminal law has traditionally addressed itself to the person rather than to the organisation, and the courts have ample powers to deal with anyone in this country who engages in violent activities or conspires to commit acts of violence, whatever may be the objects of any organisation of which he may be a member. Quite certainly, my right honourable friend would not hesitate to use these powers.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness again to talk to her right honourable friend? Does she not realise that what she is saying now is that a body of people, who are formed for the purpose of arranging massacres and carrying them into effect, are part and parcel of an organisation which is going to be allowed to open an office in this country? It is against the criminal law ; it is against the United Nations' Charter ; it is against all common sense. May I ask the noble Baroness to reconsider the whole matter with her right honourable friend? Also, may I say that I propose to raise this question again at a later stage to find out what are the results of these further inquiries and considerations.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I will certainly pass on to my right honourable friend the concern which is quite obviously felt in this House. But, as I think was also made quite clear to this House earlier on another Question, and as I sought to do again to-day, there is no power in law to prevent organisations as such ; but there are plenty of powers to act against persons who are found offending against the criminal law.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether this country is the first to grant permission to the P.L.O. to open an office in this country, and, if not, which other countries have given this permission?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, as I said in the original reply to the Question on the Order Paper, we have not granted permission ; nor have we given any facilities.