HL Deb 25 April 1984 vol 451 cc25-37

4.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on the events following the shooting incident outside the Libyan People's Bureau on Tuesday, 17th April. The Statement is as follows:

"At 10 a.m. on 17th April a peaceable demonstration was taking place outside the Libyan People's Bureau. The police were in full control and there were no problems of public order. Without any warning, shots were fired from an automatic weapon from a window on the first floor of the bureau. Twelve people were injured and were taken to hospital, including a woman police constable, Yvonne Fletcher, who, as the House knows, died shortly afterwards. I am sure that all honourable Members will wish to be associated with the message of deepest sympathy which I sent to Yvonne Fletcher's parents.

"The police acted immediately to cordon off the area and to evacuate nearby buildings. They have since maintained a protective watch on the bureau and controlled movements there. I should like to pay tribute to the police for the exemplary way in which they have handled this difficult situation throughout, with great skill and patience.

"I should add that at 8 p.m. on 20th April a bomb exploded in the luggage collection hall at Heathrow Airport, injuring 25 people. Inquiries into this further incident are continuing, it is not yet clear whether it is connected with what happened in St. James's Square.

"The murder of WPC Fletcher from inside the Libyan People's Bureau was a barbaric outrage, which was, as my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made clear in his announcement on 22nd April, a totally unacceptable and unprecedented breach of British law, international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

"After the shooting took place, we immediately asked the Libyan authorities to instruct those inside the bureau to leave the building and to allow it to be searched for weapons and explosives. This request has been repeatedly refused by the Libyans.

"In the face of this Libyan refusal, we proposed to the Libyan authorities three things as a basis for terminating diplomatic relations by agreement: first, that all current occupants of the People's Bureau and all other Libyan diplomatic staff in the United Kingdom should leave the country in safety, secondly, that our own diplomatic staff should leave Libya in safety; and, thirdly, that we should be satisfied that all weapons and explosives were removed from the Libyan People's Bureau, and that their buildings in the United Kingdom were no longer capable of being used as a base for terrorist acts.

"The Libyans did not accept these proposals. Instead they in effect suggested that the outrage of 17th April should simply be put on one side. Colonel Gaddafi proposed a Libyan Commission of Inquiry, to come to the United Kingdom and inquire into the facts, and for any Libyan implicated to be put on trial in Libya. We regarded this response to the flagrant abuse of diplomatic immunity and the murderous attack on WPC Fletcher as totally inadequate.

"We therefore decided to break diplomatic relations forthwith with Libya, with effect from 6 p.m. on 22nd April. We informed the Libyan authorities that all their diplomatic staff in London and anyone else in the Libyan People's Bureau in St. James's Square have until midnight on 29–30th April to vacate their premises and leave the country. They are free to leave at any time before then, if they wish, and we are making arrangements for their safe passage out of the country. But we will not permit them to remain beyond Sunday night. It is at that point that any diplomatic immunity expires.

"The police will satisfy themselves that anyone emerging from the bureau is not carrying arms and explosives with them when they leave the premises, and then that the premises are safe and secure. I should add that the police view is that without the co-operation of those in the bureau it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained which would sustain in court a criminal charge for the murder.

"We have informed the Libyans that the staff of the British Embassy will be withdrawn from Libya by midnight on 29–30th April, and we look to the authorities there to fulfil their obligation to guarantee their safe departure. We have also made clear to the Libyan authorities that we hold them responsible for the safety of the British community in Libya, to which we have attached the highest importance throughout. We have exercised our right to designate a protecting power to look after their interests. We are most grateful to the Italian Government for agreeing to undertake this task, and the Libyan Government have agreed to this. In London, the embassy of Saudi Arabia will act in a similar way for the Libyans.

"I should also inform the House of the action which I have taken on other Libyans in this country, or who wish to travel here. I am looking carefully at any evidence that the presence of any individual here is against the national interest, and I am not hesitating to use my powers of removal where it is. Two Libyans have been deported since the shooting. Libyans who wish to travel here from Libya will, for the time being, have to apply for visas in neighbouring states. Their applications, and those from Libyans elsewhere in the world, will have to be referred to London, where they will be thoroughly and carefully examined. Applications for entry from those already holding extant visas will similarly be scrutinised with great care, and I would advise these people to reapply. These measures will ensure that, in the coming months, only in the most exceptional circumstances will Libyan nationals be admitted to this country.

"I share the national sense of anger at the tragic death of a young policewoman and at the gross abuse of diplomatic immunities which caused it. We have made every effort to resolve matters peacefully and by mutual agreement. The attitude of the Libyan authorities has made it impossible for normal relations to continue. We shall continue, as we have throughout, to observe scrupulously our obligations under the Vienna Convention. But what has occurred clearly raises serious questions as to the adequacy of the convention, its operation and enforceability. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will now review these matters and consider whether to put forward proposals for changes in the international community.

"Honourable Members will appreciate that until the Libyans who are going have gone and British embassy staff in Libya return home, the situation remains delicate. But we could not conceivably countenance with equanimity the outrage that we witnessed in London last week. We are responding to it firmly, but in accordance with international law. Libya, for its part, must now accept its clear responsibility for the protection and safe return of our staff in the British embassy and their families."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement. May I, at once, from these Benches, express our sympathy to the parents of woman police constable Fletcher. It is so tragic that a promising young life should end in this way. As I have already said, we extend our deepest sympathy to her parents. On behalf of the Opposition may I add a word of sympathy also to those who were injured outside the People's Bureau in this barbarous incident and wish them, I believe on behalf of all your Lordships, a speedy and complete recovery.

We would also wish to join in an expression of admiration of our police and security forces for the courage, the coolness and the patience which they have shown. We appreciate the difficulties that confront Ministers in handling this outrage, especially having regard to their responsibility and, indeed, ours, for the safety of our courageous and level-headed ambassador, his family, and staff, as well as some 8,000 British subjects who are now in Libya. Our last wish, at this moment from these Benches, would be to add one whit to those difficulties. But there are some areas that I believe are of some public concern on which I should like to ask the Minister some questions. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord sees fit to reply to them.

The Statement commences: At 10a.m. on 17th April a peaceable demonstration was taking place outside the Libyan People's Bureau. The police were fully in control and there were no problems of public order". I have just quoted from the Statement. Did the police authorities, or the Government, as has been reported in the media, receive prior warning that violence was likely to erupt if a demonstration took place in front of the Libyan People's Bureau? If so, what, if anything, was done about it? In any event, knowing the kind of people we were dealing with as occupants of the People's Bureau at that time, was it wise to allow the demonstration to go into St. James's Square and permit people to demonstrate in front of the building?

Secondly, why did Her Majesty's Government continue to permit a situation where, so far as one can understand, we literally did not know who was in charge of the People's Bureau and who were, and who were not, entitled to diplomatic immunity? Thirdly, while noting the steps that are being taken, as recorded in the Statement, in regard to Libyans who want to enter this country as from now, but bearing in mind how much we have known over so long a period as to what was occurring with the so-called Libyan students, were sufficient or adequate steps taken by the Home Office to test their claims to enter and remain in this country as genuine students?

One notes in the Statement that, the police view is that without the co-operation of those in the bureau it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained that would sustain in court a criminal charge for the murder". It is reported in The Times today: Tripoli is reported to know the killer's identity, but he is not a diplomat". That ends my quotation from The Times. Do the police authorities have any evidence at all to identify the murderer, and does the Statement mean that that murderer will go scot-free from these shores without any further police inquiries being made?

My last point to the Minister relates to the Statement, which we welcome from these Benches, in regard to the serious questions as to the adequacy of the Vienna Convention, its operation, and enforce-ability. The Statement says: My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will now review these matters and consider whether to put forward proposals for changes in the international community. Does not the noble Lord the Minister agree that this reconsideration and these approaches to look at the provisions and revise them are of great and immediate urgency, bearing in mind the tragic conditions in which we have to carry on our international work in this world of today? Further, does he not regard it as of immediate importance to look at a convention which appears to allow arms to be carried from one country to another in what are called diplomatic bags?

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, perhaps I may first of all associate my noble friends with the tributes which have been paid to woman police officer Fletcher and express to her relatives our deep regret at her untimely death. At the same time, I should like to associate my noble friends with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said about those who were shot down in the street at the same time and who are now, we hope, recovering in hospital.

I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, three questions. First, taking one of the last points put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I should like to ask him whether he is aware, as I suspect he must be, of the deep concern of public opinion that on Sunday the murderer of Miss Fletcher will get on a plane going to Tripoli and that there will be no criminal process against that individual at all. That being so, is he in a position to tell us that in view of the serious questions arising from the Vienna Convention, we shall have an early opportunity of a debate in this House on all of these matters? The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is present with us at the moment, and I very much hope that he will be able to assure us that there will be a debate in Government time, when the Government will, I trust, be in a position to give us a much greater and franker account of what has been taking place than they are able to do today, with the Libyans still in St. James's Square.

Secondly, does the noble Lord, Lord Elton, recall the concern which was expressed in this House on 5th April about the bomb attacks carried out in March by Libyans in London and Manchester? Does he recall the concern which was expressed on that occasion about what was going on in this country? That being so, will he address himself to the point already put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about the question of arms and explosives, which undoubtedly have been kept in the Libyan People's Bureau in London? Although no doubt some of these explosives will be returned in diplomatic bags to Tripoli in the next few days, can the Minister tell us about the form of words used in his right honourable friend's Statement that after the Libyans have left the police will ensure that the premises are safe and secure? Does it, or does it not, mean, for what it will then be worth, that the police will enter those premises and carry out any form of search?

Lastly, is the Minister aware that we on these Benches warmly welcome the Home Secretary's decision to deport two Gaddafi agents in the last 48 hours? But, in the light of Colonel Gaddafi's terrorist campaign in this country over the last four years, why have quite so many visas been given to Libyan middle-aged gentlemen, describing themselves as students, who have entered this country, when clearly their principal concern was not to carry out any form of study here? May I remind him that over the last four years the Libyan Government have supported the international terrorist known as Carlos, have supported the IRA, and have conducted a campaign of bombing and assassinations? In the light of that, why has there not been a far more rigorous approach to the granting of visas to Libyan citizens entering this country?

4.26 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I should like to take together the responses of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I was glad that they added their sympathy for those injured outside the bureau to our mutual sympathy for the parents and family of the policewoman who was so murderously killed. We share that.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, started by quoting the Statement as saying that a small and peaceable demonstration was in progress. Indeed, it was small; I think there were about 70 people there and about 30 police controlling them. He then went on to ask whether the Government had advance warning of what was going to happen. I think it would be as well if I replied to that fairly fully. Two officials of the Libyan People's Bureau telephoned the Foreign Office on the evening of 16th April and called there just after midnight to say to the duty officer that they were concerned about the demonstration planned for the next day, regarding which they had inquired on the afternoon of 16th April. They said that if the demonstration went ahead, they would not be answerable for the consequences. I should make it clear that that last statement is a totally standard Libyan line and we did not regard it as particularly significant at the time.

Although it is true that the act of calling on a person at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the middle of the night was unusual, the message was not. For this reason, after consulting members of the political department concerned, the duty officer telephoned, on instructions, both Scotland Yard and the duty officer at the Home Office to report this Libyan approach.

The Home Secretary does not have the power to ban static demonstrations. He can only agree to a request of the commissioner to ban a march. So there was no power to ban this event, and there was no indication that could reasonably be supposed to be convincing that anything unusual was going to happen on this occasion.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, then referred to people other than the diplomats, and in particular students. Your Lordships should know that apart from the Libyan People's Bureau in St. Jame's Square, they also have a hostel and offices in Ennismore Gardens and a consulate in Prince's Gate. All these have to be vacated by the deadline. The only difference between them and the bureau is that the occupants of the bureau must leave under strict police supervision to ensure safety, but thereafter the status of the buildings is equal in each case.

On the question of students, for several years extreme care has been taken in vetting applications, but it would not have been practicable to prevent any students entering. There are severe difficulties in being absolutely sure in advance that an applicant will be engaged in unlawful conduct. Nonetheless, we have been very careful on the screening, though your Lordships have seen that not all has been successful.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quoted from The Times an article which I saw. It reports that a person—or people—in Tripoli knows who is the murderer, and knows that he is not a diplomat. That is not something of which they are likely to inform us, and I cannot answer for the truth of it. But the fact is, as I mentioned in the Statement, that the prospect of obtaining, without the co-operation of the people inside the bureau, the means of securing a conviction, or even a charge, does not exist. That sticks in my gullet as it does in the gullets of everyone in your Lordships' House. But we have a responsibility to our own people who are in Libya at this moment. The whole web of international relations, which rests only upon convention and good manners, is under acute strain at this moment. It seems to me that we must observe the convention very strictly while it is in force if we are to expect the Libyans to do the same.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I apologise to the House for rising to speak again; but this is a very grave matter. I hope that the House will therefore forgive me if I just revert to two questions which the noble Lord the Minister, in the first case, misunderstood and in the second case—if I may say so with deep respect—did not answer. First, in no way did I suggest that the demonstration should have been banned. What I asked was whether, bearing in mind one's knowledge of the behaviour of the type of people inside that building, it was wise—especially having regard to the warning of which we now know—not to have diverted the demonstration from a place immediately outside the People's Bureau which was eventually where it took place. That was my first question. I think that the noble Lord the Minister misunderstood it because he talked about banning. Secondly, I asked the noble Lord a direct question as to whether the Statement meant that inquiries in regard to this murder and the identity of the murderer were now to cease, or are they at least to be carried on in the hope of finding out who the murderer was, however difficult and hopeless the task might seem to be?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I think that I ought to respond to those questions. As regards the first issue of which the noble Lord has reminded me—if I may so put it—the Secretary of State cannot actually say anything about a demonstration unless it is moving; it is up to the police to decide. As regards the police on this occasion, the demonstration was, by London standards, a very small one and there were half as many police as there were demonstrators. There was no reason to suppose that anything untoward was about to occur until this unfortunate woman and many others were gunned down from diplomatic premises. This is unprecedented in the history of this country. It is not something on which we can look to earlier examples to guide us on how to behave and can say, "This may be very dangerous; they may shoot us from the embassy". Such a thing has not happened before.

Regarding what the police continue to do in respect of this crime, I cannot, as the noble Lord will understand, give a specific answer on the detail. The only answer that I can give as to the movements of the people inside the Libyan People's Bureau building at this moment is what is in the Statement—which is very clear—and which means that the diplomatic immunity of the people therein will be respected.

I have it in mind that there is another outstanding question from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which was about the possibility of a debate. The noble Lord will know the answer which I have to give him perforce and that it is a matter for the usual channels; but I do not doubt that the noble Lord will exert himself thereupon.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the people who have not diplomatic immunity within the so-called People's Bureau are going to be allowed to leave without being interrogated and without being questioned by the police? If that is the case, it seems that we are stretching the Vienna Convention a very, very long way.

Lord Elton

My Lords, at midnight on Sunday all the people—whether or not they have diplomatic immunity now—will lose that immunity. If they are still here there will be no differentiation and no protection. Up to that point the situation is as it is described in the Statement. They will all be required to go, and to go out of this country for good.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I am sorry to press this point, but if there are people who do not have diplomatic immunity they are then presumably treated exactly the same as students or as you and I, or as tourists or whoever it may be. They are presumably material witnesses to a crime of absolute abhorrence which has been committed in this country. Why cannot those people be taken and asked to help the police with their inquiries?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I have tried to make it as clear as I can. I can only add to what I have repeated from the Statement already that the police view is that without the co-operation of those in the bureau it does not seem possible that evidence could be obtained which would sustain in court a criminal charge for the murder. My noble friend is suggesting that we should do something which would have no fruit in this country, but which might have fruit, which we would regret, elsewhere.

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, there are two questions that I should like to put to the noble Lord. First, is he aware that the Englishman's right to express his dissent from the behaviour of other governments and to express that dissent by demonstrating outside those countries' embassies, is a very old one indeed and goes back at least to the 18th century and I think earlier, and that to be frightened of doing that by assassins would be very wrong indeed?

Secondly, why has this action been so long delayed? The only good thing we can really say of Colonel Gaddafi is that he never at any point at all indicated that he would abide by international law, that he would abide by the conventions of international law or that he regarded international law with anything other than contempt. But when he came here he did not open an embassy—he opened a people's commission and that was just to express the fact that anything he did would be purely one-sided, that he had no intention to play by the rules of a diplomatic game. Then later on he sent assassins over here; we knew very well that they were his assassins and we went on having communications with him. Then four alleged students turned up and seized the embassy or the People's Bureau. They were said to be students but we knew perfectly well that they were not and that they were here illegally. Why do we have to wait until this unfortunate lady is murdered before we remove these known and self-asserted assassins from our shores?

Lord Elton

My Lords, on the first of the noble Lord's points, I can only agree. As regards the noble Lord's second point, he is aware of course of the successive deportations, detentions, trials and convictions of Libyans that have taken place in this country. But I ought to remind the noble Lord, Lord Paget, of something that he said himself because it is a view with which I agree. In 7th December 1981 (at column 1242 of the Official Report) he said: in the international sphere there is no sovereign. International law is based upon agreement, and those agreements are based upon one fundamental agreement, which is that each will respect the sovereignty of the other". Certainly Colonel Gaddafi has never given allegiance to that principle; but if we were to breach it unilaterally, without testing it most severely, we would be risking much more than this part of the web of international agreement, which maintains civilised international life right round the globe.

To turn to timing, I do not know whether the noble Lord has in mind the five days which it took for us to come to the conclusion that we did. But as the Home Secretary explained in his Statement, we first sought to persuade the Libyan authorities that their staff should leave the bureau and let the police search it for arms and explosives. We then sought to achieve our objectives by breaking relations by mutual agreement, and when they refused to do either we decided that relations could not continue. I do not think that the intransigence of others ought to force precipitate action upon us. I believe that a considered and orderly observance of international conventions is the best that we can do to protect the interests of the very large number of British citizens at present in Tripoli and other parts of Libya.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, I should like to ask a question relating to the future. Until recently I should have thought that what the Libyans have done might constitute a virtual "act of aggression" under the United Nations Charter and should, therefore, be taken by us to the Security Council. Clearly, that is now out of the question because it is obvious that there will be a Soviet veto on any proposed resolution.

I suppose that there might still be a possibility of having it considered by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community. If that is so, I imagine that, first, we should have to make discreet inquiries to find out whether there would be unanimity among our colleagues for taking the same action as we have taken—namely, breaking off relations with the Libyan Government. If all this fails, and the Colonel continues with his policy of assassination, of course, I imagine—and I do not want to exacerbate the situation in any way—that we should have to consider with our colleagues other means of exerting pressure. On the other hand, if there is ever a question of economic sanctions, I would ask the Government to consider that history has shown that economic sanctions are never likely to have any good effect unless there is the intention in the background to use force in the last resort.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I think that I can best reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, by saying that, indeed, we are lobbying our European Economic Community partners on this matter, and that we are receiving an increasing volume of international support, some of it now being publicly stated. So far we have received expressions of support from the United States, Australia, Canada, Belgium and Norway. The Easter holiday has interrupted matters and so the responses are only just coming in. We are keeping the United Nations secretary-general closely informed, and have placed on record our account of the incident of 17th April in order to refute a totally misleading Libyan version, which was circulated earlier.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions. The first arises from the questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Paget, concerning the right or the privilege of people to demonstrate on the streets of London and in other cities of this country on matters which are totally irrelevant to the policies of Her Majesty's Government. Although we must clearly take full cognisance of the right of people to demonstrate against what they perceive to be the policies of this Government, is there not something quite different about using the streets of London and the streets of other cities of this country to demonstrate against the policies of foreign governments, which are totally irrelevant to the domestic or foreign policies of Her Majesty's Government? Is there not something to be said for preventing, discouraging, or at least creating some rules about these demonstrations?

My second question is more specific. The noble Lord mentioned certain installations in London which are recognised as being installations occupied by Libyans and representatives of the Libyan Government. Do Her Majesty's Government intend to do anything about an educational establishment in Chelsea which is thought by most people to be (if I may put it this way) not exactly what it seems to be? Are Her Majesty's Government planning to take any action about the people who occupy those premises in Chelsea?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I shall, of course, draw to the attention of my right honourable friend what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in his first question. However, I think that one should regard with very great suspicion a proposal to prevent the peaceable expression of public opinion, in public, in a democracy, when what we have to advertise is, in fact, freedom of expression of view in a free country. As I said, this has never happened before and on this occasion I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paget, that one ought not to be frightened by the assassin into buttoning up the liberty of expression of expatriate communities, who ought to be free to express views of their home governments. However, I shall ask my right honourable friend to take into account what the noble Lord has said.

The noble Lord's second point was clear to me a moment ago, but has now entirely escaped me. If he will give me a one-word cue, I shall recall it.

Lord Chalfont

My Lords, I raised the matter of the school in Chelsea.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I know the school which the noble Lord has in mind. We do not have such suspicious views, as perhaps does the noble Lord, but there is a discreet police presence outside the school to make sure that nothing untoward goes on.

Lord Morris

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was, of course, referring to either mobile or static demonstrations by nationals of other countries who are guests of this country. To put it at its lowest common denominator, it is as bad as having a row with one's wife at someone else's party. The noble Lord has simply suggested that such people should not be allowed to demonstrate in this country in regard to whatever cause with which they are concerned. I believe that most serious consideration should be given to that point. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Such people would be perfectly free to express their opinion in the territory of that nation or, indeed, within that nation's embassy.

Lord Elton

My Lords, one cannot make particular rules for particular occasions. The general rule is that this is a free country with freedom of speech.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, does the Minister's reply to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mean that the Government have already gone rather further than is indicated towards the end of the Home Secretary's Statement on initiating international discussions with the object of a review of the Vienna Convention? If that is so, it would certainly be very warmly welcomed in many quarters, as the scale and nature of international terrorism has undergone great changes since the convention was brought into effect. Can the noble Lord confirm that those international discussions will not only cover dealing with abuses of the diplomatic bag, but will also deal with the practices and procedures for checking upon the status and identity of the occupants of missions and, indeed, of the missions themselves? Would he not agree that one of the lessons to be learnt from last week's barbaric outrage is that—to use an inadequate word—we cannot tolerate unorthodox missions in the future?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the lobbying to which I referred and the support resulting from it, which I also mentioned, is in the first stages and is concerned with expressions of solidarity with us regarding the outrage we feel at the murder of an innocent girl under diplomatic privilege, the outrageous breach of diplomatic privilege, and the convention from which this sprang. We are conducting that exercise on a wide scale, and the Prime Minister has also sent personal messages to a number of heads of government. However, the question which the noble Lord wishes to pursue is that of the review of the convention. I can only say that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be embarking on that review, and it will doubtless embrace all the matters which the noble Lord has raised. Indeed, I shall draw this debate to my right honourable friend's attention.

Lord Lloyd

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned the question of economic sanctions. Can the Minister tell us what kind of effect, plus or minus, the imposition of economic sanctions on Libya would have on this country?

Lord Elton

My Lords, my knowledge of such matters is not extensive, but it extends this far. These things never stop where you start them, and I do not think that I could say what the end of that line would be.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I was pleased to hear that the Government are keeping the United Nations secretary-general closely in touch with the situation. Will the Minister consider the following suggestion? In view of the totally unpredictable character of the people with whom we are dealing, would it not perhaps be wise to ask the United Nations to send an observer? I ask that because we have had the most extraordinary statements issued from Colonel Gaddafi, from Libya, and from other countries. In view of the propaganda which has been issued from both Libya and other countries, and the fact that anything may happen before Sunday, it might be as well to have verified the undoubtedly correct actions that the Government are taking.

Lord Elton

My Lords, that is an idea of some originality which I shall pass to my right honourable friend. I would not like to respond to it in other terms.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, the noble Lord used the expression "lobbying". He said that they were lobbying our European partners. Is he aware that many people feel that if there is anything in the Community idea at all there ought to be an immediate and common reaction of all our European partners to this outrage?

Lord Elton

My Lords, noble Lords will watch with interest what the response of fellow members of the European Community will be. I know that their hearts at least are in the right places.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, would there not be some advantage, does the noble Lord not think, in publish-ing in due course information about the links between Libya and the IRA? Finally, do we have to assume from this Statement that the murder weapon will be returned officially by the Libyan Government in the diplomatic bag to Libya?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I always regard as very unwise undertakings from this Box to publish matters of security and intelligence importance. I would not think that there would be great merit in publishing anything which may exist of the nature which the noble Lord has said. As to what is being done with the murder weapon, I have no more knowledge than anyone else at this stage.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, is the Minister aware that quite a number of ordinary people are perturbed that we did not appear to know who was in this so-called People's Bureau? There have been instances when we have dismissed overnight diplomats by the dozen from other embassies in London. Was there any equivalent of the structure of ambassadors, counsellors and other people who represent their countries in this country in other embassies in this so-called bureau, so that we could at least know who was there and might have had records, who might have committed crimes elsewhere or committed them in this country? It is giving some concern to millions of ordinary people that we did not seem to be aware of just who was in this building.

The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)

My Lords, the noble Lord's question will be very carefully looked at. I hope that the House will feel, in view of the feelings recently expressed about the time taken in repeating Statements, that while this is the most important Statement and one which quite properly the House will take considerable notice of, 46 minutes is a reasonable time to have given to it and the other debate which has been interrupted should now advance.