§ Lord BrockwayMy 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, in view of the statement of Dr. Issam Sartauri, PLO representative in Paris, confirming the reported statement of Mr. Arafat in The Times interview, that the PLO has agreed "in the most unequivocal manner the right of Israel to exist on a reciprocal basis … in sovereignty and within secure borders", they will now urge the United Nations Security Council to initiate negotiations for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, the statements by Dr. Sartauri and those reported to have been made by Mr. Arafat appear to be a constructive step towards the mutual acceptance of Palestinian and Israeli rights. But we have not seen evidence that they can be taken as fully authoritative. We do not consider that the time is right for a successful initiative in the Security Council.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, is not this Question tragically significant because of the assassination this morning of the deputy head of the PLO? Can the Minister say whether these specific statements now supported by the PLO acceptance in New York of Resolution 242 do not provide the opportunity of reconciling Palestinian self-determination with Israeli security? Should it not be seized immediately and comprehensively, not only to contribute to a solution in the Middle East but to end the disastrous conflict in the Lebanon? Does not the fact that there are now in New York the Foreign Ministers of Syria and Saudi Arabia as well as representatives of the PLO, make a meeting of the United Nations Security Council possible and promising?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I said in my original Answer that I do not think the time is now right for a successful initiative in the Security Council. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that the reason for this is that Israel remains totally opposed to dealings with the PLO. However, this does not amount to a veto.
As to the events in Paris overnight, for the second time this week I was both sickened and saddened by a terrorist attack. Although the Paris police have not yet confirmed the identity of the victim, he is believed to be Fadel el-Dain, the deputy director of the PLO's Paris bureau for the last two years. If so, he will be the twelfth PLO official to be assassinated since 1979. I note that the PLO are as liable as anyone else to terrorist attack.
§ Baroness GaitskellMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the terms which the PLO set for accepting the state of Israel are deeply offensive to Jews all over the world and to the Israelis? They simply say that Israel can have autonomy—that it can be free—by permission of the PLO. This is utterly unacceptable to Jews everywhere.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I think that the noble Baroness is reading more into the situation than actually exists.
§ Lord George-BrownMy Lords, as one who had something to do with the drafting and the ultimate passage of Resolution 242, is the Minister aware that if—as is reported in the papers—the PLO at any level in New York have indicated to Mr. Habib or to any other official that they are now ready to accept that resolution, it would mean that something for which we have been pushing ever since it was passed is now a matter of great significance? If the noble Lord has no direct knowledge of this, would he ask our representatives in New York without delay to seek an authoritative statement that the PLO will now accept that resolution?—because, if so, much then becomes possible.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has picked up my point on authoritative statements, and with his experience I had no doubt that he would. I should like to make a remark which, in fact, I should have made to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but I regret that in my answer to his list of questions I omitted this one. We have, of course, long pressed the PLO to proceed by peaceful means, accepting Israel and renouncing terrorism. If they were able to take this step in a clear way and so begin a dialogue with the United States, that—and I agree, with the noble Lord, Lord GeorgeBrown—would be a most welcome development. However, rumours of the PLO recognition of Israel emanate from Beirut. So far as we know, they were not discussed at the recent talks in Washington to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred.
§ Lord BeloffMy Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not think that it is not very helpful to the cause of peace to pick out and put on your Lordships' Order Paper quotations from the press which, by the time they are discussed, may have been overtaken by other statements?—in this case, a day later a statement from the State Department that they had no knowledge of such an agreement. Would it not be better to confine our discussions of these matters to occasions when the subject can be thrashed out in the light of information afforded to us officially?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, in a measure I agree with my noble friend. However, as I understand it, the purpose of Question Time—and without the little red book to hand it is difficult to be precise—is to elicit the views on particular matters that concern noble Lords and to get the Government's response. I hope that this morning I have been able to achieve that aim.
§ Lord GladwynMy Lords, do the Government think that the recent utterances of Mr. Begin on the question of a Palestinian state conflict in any way with Security Council Resolution 242?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I am unaware of recent utterances by Mr. Begin on this particular point, so I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord.
§ Lord AnnanMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that many Members of your Lordships' House welcomed his first reply to the Question put to him? Would he not also agree that it is a total delusion to imagine that, when Mr. Habib has been negotiating for seven weeks in Beirut, this matter can, in a flash, be settled in the United Nations? Would he also agree that at this time we should not forget the Lebanon, which, unfortunately for that wretched country, did not have the power which the wise King Hussein of Jordan had to expel the PLO from its territory?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I am in total agreement with the views just expressed by the noble Lord.
§ Lord CaradonMy Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister not agree that, quite apart from statements by one side or the other in the dispute, which are of course important, there is an obligation on this country in particular, and also on the Security Council, to seek a settlement of this problem based on the principles which have been accepted ever since the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, put forward his proposals in 1967? Is it not, therefore, necessary that this country in particular, having a special responsibility, should in the Security Council seek a settlement of the dispute going back to the basic requirements of a settlement, rather than spending time arguing about the exact wording of the statements from one side or the other?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, the noble Lord has very much more experience in these matters than I have. However, it is most essential to lay one's groundwork before the subject comes up for discussion in the Security Council. This is what Mr. Habib with our support and the support of our EEC partners is seeking to do.
§ Lord ArdwickMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
§ Baroness YoungMy Lords, once again I recognise that we are discussing a Question that is of great interest to your Lordships, but I think that it would be the wish of everyone that we should move on to the next Question.