HL Deb 06 May 1980 vol 408 cc1531-9

3.37 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement on the Iranian Embassy incident, being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"As the House is aware, this incident was brought to a conclusion yesterday evening following an assualt by members of the Special Air Service Regiment. I regret that it proved necessary to resort to the use of force, but there was in the end no alternative. The terrorists killed two hostages. The outcome of the assault, I believe, speaks for itself. Of the 19 hostages known to be alive when the assault took place all were rescued. Sixteen have already been discharged from hospital. Three remain there. At least three gunmen are known to have been killed in the assault and another is in police custody; none escaped. There were no police or SAS casualties.

"Throughout five days of the siege, the Metropolitan Police patiently sought to negotiate towards a peaceful conclusion. As a result of their efforts, five hostages were, progressively, released. On behalf of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and myself I made it clear to the Commissioner that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to give in to the terrorists' demands for a safe conduct out of this country. Subject to that overriding consideration, we did everything in our power to persuade the terrorists peacefully to surrender and free the hostages. It was in the light of that policy that my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sought the assistance of some ambassadors from certain Middle Eastern countries; but help from that source was not possible. The Commissioner of Police underlined the approach his officers were taking in a personal written message that was delivered into the Iranian Embassy yesterday. The help of a Muslim Imam was also sought. He spoke personally to the gunmen in an attempt to persuade them not to take action which would be damaging both to their hostages and to themselves.

"As yesterday progressed it became increasingly clear, however, that the days of patient negotiation and of personal direct appeals were not going to achieve their objectives. From the start of the siege, the gunmen had regularly threatened to kill hostages if demands were not met. As soon as it became clear that they had begun to carry out those threats, I authorised, at the Commissioner's request, the commitment of the SAS.

"I know that the House will wish to join with me in congratulating the Metropolitan Police on an operation which they carried out with skill, care and determination. Their conduct throughout was an example of the highest standards of the British police. The success of the final assault and rescue is an outstanding tribute to the professionalism and bravery of the SAS. I am sure the House, and indeed the country, will wish to join the Government in giving their thanks to all those involved—police, military or civilian. Our sympathy goes to the families and friends of those hostages who have been killed or injured.

"Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would simply add this. The way in which this incident was conducted and resolved demonstrates conclusively the determination of the British Government and people not to allow terrorist blackmail to succeed."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement on the Iranian Embassy in London.

Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating this important Statement. We on these Benches—and I am sure that this goes for noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House—would like to offer to the Government our warm congratulations on what was undoubtedly a brilliantly successful operation. I would hope that a way will he found to pass on our congratulations to the police, to the Special Air Services Regiment and to the other services involved, and especially to the Commissioner, Sir David McNee, and to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Mr. John Dellow—who was assigned to this particular post only last year—and perhaps your Lordships might agree not least to Police Constable Trevor Locke. Throughout the operation the patience, courage and swift efficiency of all those involved was absolutely clear. I would wholly agree that it was right to bring the SAS into the operation from an early stage.

We would also join with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in expressing our feelings of sympathy both for the hostages themselves in their ordeal and for their families; and for the families of those hostages who lost their lives. We also share his regret that the incident ended in violence, but clearly, in the circumstances that was unavoidable.

The handling of the operation clearly demonstrates that we in this country are not prepared to tolerate acts of terrorism; nor are we prepared to offer safe conduct to those who commit criminal acts. There are three questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. First, is he satisfied with the security provisions at embassies, especially the more sensitive and vulnerable ones, and is this a matter which is being reviewed further after an incident of this kind? Clearly that has to be commensurate with lawful access to embassies at all times. Secondly, given the spread of Middle Eastern terrorism to this country, would he consider asking his noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to impress upon Middle Eastern embassies that passports should not be given under any pretext to those who are not their own nationals—this is something which apparently has been happening to some extent—and also to remind them that the carriage of arms under diplomatic protection is, at the very least, an unfriendly act and probably also a criminal act under our domestic law?

Finally, if there are lessons for us in this matter, is there not also a lesson for the Iranian Government which has praised this country's role—and we warmly welcome President Bani-Sadr's message about this—in protecting their diplomats, and yet who fail to protect the 53 Americans held hostage by the ultimate permission of the Iranian Government? Let us hope that the future for relations with Iran will he good. For obvious reasons I do not intend to put any detailed questions about the operation itself.

Lord WIGODER

My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to congratulate all those who showed such skill and bravery in the course of this outstanding operation, especially the police force including, of course, the officer who had the misfortune himself to be taken hostage, and the SAS men. It is, as was made clear in the Statement, a potentially decisive blow against international terrorism certainly as it may occur in this country, and one can only hope that our Western allies will show similar determination if there are any acts of this sort repeated in Western Europe.

I should like to put two short questions to the noble Lord. First, have the Government received legal advice—and if so what is it—as to the position when a foreign national, who cannot claim diplomatic immunity, invades the premises of another foreign power and there commits acts which are contrary to English criminal law? Can he be tried in our courts for such offences as are there committed? Secondly—supporting the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, commented upon—would the Government think it right to stress to the Iranian Government that British citizens have risked their lives on this occasion in order to rescue members of the diplomatic staff of the Iranian Government who were unlawfully and improperly imprisoned inside their own embassy? Is this not an opportunity for urging upon the Iranian Government that they might now reconsider, without risk to their own lives, the fate of those who are imprisoned in their country?

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Boston, and the noble Lord, Lord Widoger, for their response to my right honourable friend's Statement in another place. I assure both noble Lords that the obvious feeling of your Lordships' House this afternoon will be drawn to the attention—by my right honourable friend's department—of those who were concerned in this very long-drawn-out incident, and not least to Police Constable Trevor Locke.

The noble Lord, Lord Boston, made a very important point about being satisfied with the surveillance and protection of embassies. He then made a point about passports and the very important matter of the carrying of arms. I shall draw all those points to the attention of my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary.

As regards the points which both noble Lords made about the Iranian Government, I am sure that your Lordships are aware that the Iranian Government have expressed their gratitude and appreciation for the action which was taken. However, in reply to both noble Lords I would add that naturally we shall continue to press the Iranian Government for the earliest possible release of the American diplomats being held hostage in Iran.

Finally, as regards the question which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked me, the answer is, Yes, there is no jurisdictional difficulty about the question which the noble Lord put to me. It will, of course, be for the prosecuting authorities to decide whether—and if so what—charges should be brought in relation to incidents at the embassy.

The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I should like from these Benches to express our congratulations to Her Majesty's Government and to all who have been concerned in this incident. Obviously we deplore—as do all Members of your Lordships' House—the fact that lives had to be lost. Nevertheless, that was a price which had to be paid. It is clear that decisions of great courage and great difficulty had to be taken and we are grateful to the Home Secretary, to Sir David McNee and those working with him, and to the SAS for the courage and the skill that they have shown. It must be our hope that, as a result of the patience and the firmness which have been shown in this incident, together with the skill and the courage, these acts of terrorism will be seen to be something which is utterly abhorrent and which we will not tolerate.

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate. The decisions which had to be taken in the last few days were difficult—as noble Lords opposite and from all parts of the House obviously appreciate, judging by the sensitive way in which they have responded to the two Statements on this subject which have been made in the last few days. I shall draw the remarks of the right reverend Prelate to the attention of my right honourable friend, who I think will appreciate them very much.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, although the whole House will wish to endorse the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, my noble friend Lord Wigoder, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I should like to ask the Minister about the present position of the hostages and their relatives. Is he aware that since they were released from the embassy the hostages have been held in communicado and that the relatives have been denied access to them? I have in mind one particular case where the husband of one of the hostages—a 21 year-old married woman who has been married for less than a year—yesterday evening went to St. Stephen's Hospital, Fulham, waited from 8 o'clock until 11.30 at night, and was then told that his wife had been taken away to an unspecified destination; when permission was reluctantly given for him to speak to his wife on the telephone this morning—that was as far as he could get—and he asked her whether she could come home; she said that she was unable to do so because the police required them to remain in custody as witnesses. Therefore, it did not appear to him, at any rate, as though the witnesses had agreed voluntarily to remain in police custody indefinitely or until they had given their statements.

Is it not important that equal consideration should be given to the relatives of the hostages in a case of this kind, that they are entitled to the fullest possible explanation of what is happening and the reasons why their relatives are required to remain in custody? Should not the proper explanation be given to them that they are free to leave police custody if they wish to do so?

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I am aware of the case about which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is talking because he has asked me about it. Those who have been discharged from hospital have been taken to a place where they are receiving medical care and are being well looked after. I understand that they have all expressed a wish to remain there until the police have taken detailed statements from them, but they are free to leave if they wish.

Lord MERRIVALE

My Lords, although I agree wholeheartedly with everything that has been said regarding the bravery, fortitude and patience of the police and the courage and skill of the SAS, I should like to ask two practical questions of my noble friend. First, is he aware that a very large area indeed has been cordoned-off, with a certain amount of inconvenience to the residents? Secondly, there is a fair amount of traffic chaos in Cromwell Road and Brompton Road; can he say when, in effect, this position will be eased?

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, I can quite understand the concern which my noble friend is expressing, and I am sure that the cordoning-off will be taken away as soon as possible.

Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER

My Lords, while associating myself with all that has been said by way of sympathy and admiration, I should like to ask one question in further clarification of the legal point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I understand that one gunman is under arrest and is not in hospital. Did I understand the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to imply that that gunman is liable to he prosecuted for any offence which would be open for prosecution had it been committed by a British national in the same way?

Lord BELSTEAD

Yes, my Lords.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, now that this unfortunate incident has come to a successful conclusion, will my noble friend consider whether we are right to be quite so easy-going about admitting huge numbers of students from the Middle East to this country? Does this not cause a very considerable problem as regards security, in view of the high tempers at the moment in that part of the world, and the many differences of opinion and unfortunate incidents which have arisen? Is not this the time to consider whether these 10,000 Iranian students are all genuine students? Have they come here for genuine courses? Have they returned at the end of, or during, those courses? Are they here on language courses? Are some of them here as visitors? What applies to Iran also applies to a number of other countries in the Middle East. At this time ought we not to review the numbers of students from that part of the world who are here, and whether or not they are genuine?

Lord BELSTEAD

My Lords, it was with precisely those thoughts in mind—although, of course, Her Majesty's Government did not envisage what was going to occur—that we put into the immigration rules what we thought was a reasonable provision about the period of time during which students should be here if they are on genuine courses. So far as visas are concerned, in accordance with the Luxembourg Declaration of 22nd April, we have decided to suspend the Visa Abolition Agreement between the United Kingdom and Iran. The exact timing of that will be fixed shortly.