HL Deb 01 May 1984 vol 451 cc492-503

4.44 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the foreign relations aspect of the subject on which my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary has just made a Statement in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"The so-called Libyan People's Bureau dates back to 2nd September 1979. At that time a series of self-styled revolutionary committees took over Libyan Embassies in London and in at least eight other Western European capitals. After long negotiations with the Libyan authorities, we and the other Western governments concerned, working together, in June 1980 recognised one official in each people's bureau abroad as equivalent to a Head of Mission. At the same time we and the other countries agreed to treat the people's bureaux as diplomatic missions.

"During this period Her Majesty's Government took firm action against those Libyans who infringed our laws. In June 1980 Mr. Musa Kusa, the newly-accredited Secretary-General of the Libyan People's Bureau, stated publicly his approval of the killing of a Libyan dissidents in the United Kingdom. On the following day my predecessor required him to leave the country forthwith. With the co-operation of the Home Secretary, three other Libyans were also expelled.

"In November 1980 the two children of a Libyan dissident were poisoned in Portsmouth. As a result of that crime, four Libyans—none of whom had any diplomatic status—were convicted and sentenced to long terms in prison. In purported retaliation, the Libyans expelled three members of the British Embassy staff in Tripoli and an attempt was made to burn down the embassy building.

"Throughout the next three years, the behaviour of the Libyans remained unpredictable and sometimes very difficult. On many occasions, the Libyans made hostile threats in characteristically intemperate language. There were, however, no further incidents of comparable gravity to those of 1980.

"Then in the middle of February this year, a group calling themselves the Committee of Revolutionary Students announced that they had taken over control of the Libyan People's Bureau in London. Since that date no member of the new revolutionary committee, nor any other Libyan, has been given any form of diplomatic status. We made it plain to the Libyans, both in London and Tripoli, that unless and until they took steps to establish a customary diplomatic mission, we would not be willing to deal with them on a normal basis.

On the 10th and 11th March there was a series of bomb explosions in London and Manchester. In close consultation with my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary, and with the police and prosecuting authorities, these events were thoroughly investigated. Four Libyans are now in custody awaiting trial on serious charges. Six more were deported by my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary. I must emphasise that none of these people had any form of diplomatic immunity, and that there was no firm evidence linking the people's bureau with these incidents. Nevertheless, I made it clear on 11th March, both in London and in Tripoli, that the use of British territory for acts of terrorism by any foreign group was totally unacceptable, and that any repetition of incidents of this kind was bound to have serious effect on our relations.

"I now come to the period immediately before the murder on 17th April. Around midnight on 16th April two members of the Libyan People's Bureau came to the Foreign Office. They told the duty officer that they had come to protest against a demonstration to be held next morning and to say that the Libyans would not be responsible for its consequences. This information was immediately passed to the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police who both already had knowledge of the planned demonstration.

"Our ambassador in Tripoli was also summoned after midnight that day to hear a similar message from the Libyan Government that they would not be responsible for the consequences. As my right honourable and learned friend told the House on 25th April such language has been repeatedly used by the Libyans in that context. The House should know that summonses to the Foreign Ministry after midnight were by no means unusual. When the ambassador commented that threats of violence did not impress the British Government, the Libyan official said that no direct threat was intended.

"The following day we were confronted with an unprecedented act of violence conducted from the diplomatic premises in the heart of London. My right honourable and learned friend has reported on the events which ensued and on the action subsequently taken. I should like to add my own profound expression of sympathy to the family of Yvonne Fletcher, who so tragically lost her life.

"As my right honourable and learned friend has already told the House, the expulsion of the staff and occupants of the Libyan People's Bureau was completed on 27th April. On the same day our own embassy staff and families were also safely withdrawn from Tripoli. I should like to pay tribute to the calm and courageous way in which the ambassador and his staff, and their families, have conducted themselves throughout. I should also like to express our thanks to the Italian Government for agreeing to act as protecting power.

"The House will wish to know that the embassy premises in Tripoli, which are the property of the Libyan Government, have been cleared of all classified material. The premises are now in the hands of the Italian Government as protecting power. The Libyan authorities have conducted a search of the premises. I have so far received no report that any damage has been done.

"We have made clear to the Libyan authorities that we hold them responsible for guaranteeing the continued safety of the British community. Two British Embassy officials have remained behind to man the newly established British Interests Section of the Italian Embassy. Their first task has been to continue to press for the release of those British citizens who are unjustifiably detained in Libya.

"The Italian Ambassador yesterday reinforced the urgent representations which had already been made on numerous occasions by our departing ambassador.

"We are urgently reviewing all existing contracts for the supply of defence equipment to Libya. There can be no question of allowing any fresh exports of that kind. We have also terminated the training of two Libyan official cadets at Dartmouth.

"These brutal and unprecedented events underline dramatically the changed world in which we now live. The implications of international terrorism, of course, spread far beyond the diplomatic field. In this recent case in London the basic problem arises from conflict between those supporting the Libyan régime and those opposing it. We cannot and will not permit foreign countries to export their internal disputes to the streets of London in this way.

"My right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary and I maintain close co-operation, which we have had throughout, to deal with this threat.

"I turn now to the questions most directly concerned with diplomatic relations. As my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary told the House last Wednesday, I have instituted a full review of the Vienna Convention, its operation and enforceability. I shall report the outcome of this review to the House. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs may well wish to study the same question, which I would welcome.

"But it is not enough simply to await the outcome of the review.

"We are therefore taking immediate unilateral action to strengthen control over the operations of foreign missions in this country.

"The ultimate sanction is of course the complete severance of diplomatic relations, as has been done in the present case. But this is an action which should only be taken in the plainest possible case. This is not a question of diplomatic nicety. This concerns the way in which Her Majesty's Government discharge their responsibility for the protection of many thousands of British subjects who live their lives, often in the furtherance of Britain's worldwide trading interests in every corner of the globe. In all too many places, the conditions which they have to face are anything but safe. It is precisely in such places that the protection of Her Majesty's Government is most necessary.

"There are up to 10,000 Britons resident in Libya. That is the second largest European community in that country.

"I recognise very plainly the anger which every British citizen must feel in the present case. I share that sense of anger. That is one good reason why decisions of this kind should only be taken after a full and proper appreciation of the interests of our country and our citizens around the world.

"This explains why the severance of diplomatic relations is such an exceptional event. No British Government have done this previously in response to abuse of immunity.

"The House may be interested to compare our reactions to Libyan provocation with those of some other countries in a similar plight. The United States Embassy in Tripoli was burnt down in December 1979, yet it was not until 1981 that diplomatic relations were suspended. Even then they were not broken.

"The French Embassy in Tripoli was burnt down in 1980. Libyan and French troops to this day confront each other in Chad. Yet diplomatic relations continue. In the case of more than one country the Libyans have taken hostages, who have been exchanged for convicted Libyan prisoners without provoking a break in diplomatic relations. The British response in the present case has been stronger than that of any other country in comparable circumstances.

"It is obviously right to consider whether other measures short of a break in diplomatic relations may be appropriate on such occasions. It has, for example, been asked whether effective measures can be adopted to prevent abuse of the diplomatic bag without requiring any amendments to the Vienna Convention. The convention provides that diplomatic bags shall 'not be opened or detained'.

"The question of scanning bags is not expressly covered. There is argument whether this is permitted or not. The practice of nearly all states is in fact not to scan.

"Our own practice hitherto has been never to allow our own bags to be scanned, nor to scan the bags of others.

"This topic is currently on the agenda of the United Nations International Law Commission. We have more than once considered whether any change of practice is desirable. Any such change would inevitably take place on a reciprocal basis. We have to decide in these cases how best to protect British interests, in particular the security of our essential communications.

"Another sanction is the expulsion of any diplomat who abuses his status.

"We can take similiar action against other staff of a diplomatic mission who do not have full diplomatic status but nevertheless enjoy immunity. Normally we take such action where there is evidence of personal conduct incompatible with diplomatic status. From now on, we shall go further. We shall be ready to use this power as an exemplary measure against any mission which the Government have good reason to believe is responsible for unacceptable activities in this country.

"We also have the power to set limits to the size of diplomatic missions and to refuse to accept as having diplomatic status any premises of a mission which are not in our view being used for diplomatic purposes. We now face a wider threat from international terrorism.

"From now on, we shall not hesitate to use our powers to prevent the abuse by missions of their diplomatic status in connection with terrorist activities.

"We have ourselves decided upon this action in response to the changing threat of international terrorism. But we do not propose to leave the matter there. I have already raised the issue with our European partners, and shall be pressing it again at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels next week. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister also intends to raise the question for consideration at the London Economic Summit in London in early June. The most effective answer to international terrorism is international action taken collectively by the major countries.

"We have taken the firmest action so far of any country faced with these threats, and shall continue to press for similar action on an international basis".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.59 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, and we also endorse the tribute which is paid in the Statement to the ambassador and other officials and their families who have been under great strain in Libya over the last few days. Of course, we also join with the right honourable gentleman and the noble Baroness in our sympathy for the family of Yvonne Fletcher.

This was a very long Statement and I shall try to ask some brief questions. In view of the reference in the Statement to a review of the Vienna Convention, can the noble Baroness say what parts of the convention the Government regard as defective and in need of amendment? Can we assume that the noble Baroness and her right honourable and learned friend are chiefly concerned about Articles 22 and 27 of the convention relating to the inviolability of foreign embassies and of diplomatic bags, to which she has just referred? Further, as there are as many as 141 signatories to the convention, is it not inevitable that any attempt to amend the convention will take a very long time indeed?

The Statement refers to the United Nations International Law Commission in Geneva. It indicates that the matter might be raised there, but can the noble Baroness say whether the Government have any firm proposals to make in addition to the unilateral steps which she has described and which the Government are proposing? Can the noble Baroness further say whether the Government are being consulted by the United States Government about the possibility of increasing pressure on Libya and whether similar talks have already been held with our partners in the European Community?

We fully support the action taken in severing diplomatic relations wiht Libya, but can the noble Baroness say whether the question is likely to be on the agenda of the NATO meeting which is to be held in Washington at the end of May?

May I put this very important question to the noble Baroness: can she confirm or deny that our trade with Libya, and the trade of Libya with other EEC countries, is a factor which may influence any action which may be taken against Libya? Would not the noble Baroness agree that it would be wrong to allow economic considerations to stand between us and an adequate response to the events in St. James's Square?

In addition, can the noble Baroness say what reply-has been received from the Soviet Government following the representations made by our ambassa-dor in Moscow about the totally one-sided coverage of this incident in the Soviet press and media? We note and support what is said in the statement about the supply of defence equipment to Libya. I should be very surprised to hear that any defence equipment has been supplied to Libya in recent years. I must confess that I was surprised to note that until the St. James's Square incident there were Libyan cadets at Darmouth.

Further, is the noble Baroness satisfied that the measures taken to ensure the safety of British citizens in Libya are adequate? Have they, for example, been told that they are there at their own risk? What advice and guidance has been given to British citizens about their continued presence in Libya?

Finally, as my noble friend has already indicated in the exchange on the previous statement, one of the most worrying aspects of this unhappy story seems to be the way in which the intelligence and the warnings were responded to by the Government. One appreciates that ministers have to make a difficult judgment in cases of this kind, and I have every sympathy with that point of view, but for the sake of the future security of the country is it not essential that an inquiry of some kind should be held?

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this very long statement. We also wish to be associated with the tributes which have been very rightly paid to our ambassador and his staff, whose conduct throughout the whole of the recent period seems to us to have been impeccable. I myself do not wish to criticise the actions which the Government have taken since the terrible incident in St. James's Square, but I believe that many noble Lords will join me in thinking that the Government should have acted when the embassy was taken over by students, so-called, pretty evidently intent on murder—no doubt on the instructions of Colonel Gaddafi, who apparently had already authorised many outrages and had announced his support of the IRA. Surely February last was the moment when our diplomatic relations could have been suitably broken off by the Government? If they had been, one terrible thing which happened would not have happened: the murder of an unfortunate policewoman in St. James's Square.

Now, however, what we need is an indication of what the Government's future policy will be. Collective action, as is said in the Statement, is no doubt desirable, but even in the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community this will be difficult to achieve. The French have to think of their relations with the colonel in connection with Chad. The Italians have still, I believe, 40,000 nationals in Libya and are very much dependent upon Libyan oil, so it will not be very easy to get any collective agreement there. If pressure, possibly economic pressure to start with, is to be exercised at all on somebody who appears, on the face of it, to be in a state of undeclared war with the entire Western world, it might best be organised in NATO, as mentioned by the noble Lord who has just spoken, under the leadership, presumably, of the United States. I do not say that we should be parties to what might be called CIA methods of coping with the colonel, methods which have already achieved prominence in certain organs of the press, but it is to be hoped in the general interests of civilised society that the colonel's reign will shortly be ended, preferably by some coup on the part of his own armed forces, which recent history has shown to be the usual way, in the long run, of coping with dictators of all sorts.

As to revising international law so as to prevent flagrant abuse by assassins calling themselves diplomats, it is obvious that, whatever our hopes may be, general international agreement on amendments to the Vienna Convention is hardly to be expected. Indeed, it is practically impossible to imagine that such an agreement would be obtained. Perhaps, however, the countries of the Western world might, as is hinted at in the long Statement which the noble Baroness has repeated, agree among themselves to take certain measures to limit diplomatic immunity with regard to certain specified countries which have, in our opinion, put themselves outside the present scope of international law and where it might not matter so very much if there was reciprocal action by the countries affected.

All these matters might well be considered in the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community and also in NATO and perhaps elsewhere. If these consultations do take place I hope that the Government will not hesitate to consult Parliament before they take any decisions regarding them.

5.8 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their response to this very serious statement. It is a long statement, but we felt it was right to set out the full facts and our proposals for dealing in the future with the situation. First, may I say that I was very glad to hear the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, to our ambassador and his staff in Tripoli. The noble Lord asked a number of important questions, which I shall do my best to answer.

The noble Lord first asked about the review of the Vienna Convention. I should like to confirm that not only will our review cover Articles 22 and 27, which deal with diplomatic bags and embassies; it will also deal with other articles. It will be a thorough review. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to that section of the Statement which makes clear that not only are we having a review of the Vienna Convention but that we are taking immediate unilateral action to strengthen the controls over the operations of foreign missions in this country. The statement lists a number of important steps that we are taking.

The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked about consultation. The matter has already been discussed in NATO. We have not asked the European Community to break off diplomatic relations, nor have we asked for a joint statement. We have to consider Italy's position as a protecting power. Nevertheless, we have had valuable support during this crisis, including support at Tripoli. All civilised countries have an interest in opposing the abuse of diplomatic immunity by acts of terrorism.

The noble Lord asked me whether trade with Libya was a factor which influenced our action. When considering what action we should take, we were, of course, and must always be influenced by the fact that there are so many British residents in Libya. As the Statement makes clear, we have broken off diplomatic relations, which is the most serious action that we could take. It is the first time that that action has been taken in circumstances such as these.

As to the reaction of the Soviet Union, our ambassa-dor in Moscow has expressed our displeasure to the Soviet authorities about Soviet press reporting of the whole incident and of what happened. The noble Lord asked me also about defence training, and he was surprised that we should have Libyans at Dartmouth. I would like to confirm that in recent years a small number of Libyan junior officers have been given basic training of a limited and non-controversial type which is not inconsistent with British trading interests. This answer was given by my honourable friend in another place last March when the subject was raised there. I can confirm that we have terminated the courses of the two Libyan students at Dartmouth and no new defence training is to be offered.

Finally, the noble Lord asked me about the position of the Libyan community in the United Kingdom. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already told the House of Commons that he will look very carefully at any evidence that the presence of any Libyan is not in the interests of this country and that, where necessary, he will have no hesitation in deporting such an individual. But I should like to confirm that those who obey our laws may remain here in freedom and safety, just as we hold the Libyan Government responsible for the safety of British citizens in Tripoli.

The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, also asked a number of questions. He first asked whether or not we had taken any action when the students took over the Libyan People's Bureau in February. Initially, we refused to deal with the revolutionary students. We insisted that the Libyans name a new head or secretary of the Libyan People's Bureau. That name was confirmed orally to us. No new additions have been accepted to the Libyan diplomatic list since the takeover in February. We knew, of course, who were accredited members of the Libyan People's Bureau but not who was inside the bureau on 17th April.

The noble Lord asked me also about collective action. I indicated in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, what has happened in the community. The Statement made clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be raising this matter in Brussels next week, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be doing so at the London economic summit. We have tried to mobilise world opinion, and ambassadors and high commissioners were instructed to lobby governments on 19th and 22nd April on the ground that all countries have an interest in opposing the misuse of diplomatic premises for terrorism. We sent a personal message to heads of government with influence over Libya, and we have been grateful for the public expressions of support by a large number of our friends and allies—notably the United States, Canada, Belgium, Norway, Australia, Ireland and France.

The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me about economic pressure. I confirm that we are not at present considering economic sanctions against Libya. He made various suggestions about the future which I shall read with interest, but I hope he feels that the steps we are taking, and the steps outlined by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, represent a very strong response. In the case of the breaking off of diplomatic relations, that is a response which has not been made in similar circumstances before.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, can the Minister throw further light on the events between the outrages in March and those on the 5th and 17th April? I believe that the Statement deals with matters up to the middle of March, when the March outrages took place, but it then goes straight to the events of 17th April. The noble Baroness has already implied that the Government indicated to the Libyan authorities—I think the words were—that they would be unable to continue to deal with them unless the mission in London was placed on a firmer footing. Was any kind of deadline set by Her Majesty's Government on that point, as to the length of time allowed to put the mission on a proper footing? And between those dates—that is to say, between mid-March and 5th April, and indeed 16th April—was any further pressure exerted by the Government on the Libyan authorities to put matters right at the Libyan bureau?

May I also ask the Minister, and while welcoming the extra controls, and the additional safeguards outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on immigration matters, whether it is envisaged that the extra unilateral measures concerning the diplomatic bag are likely to be taken within a limited time? If so, can the noble Baroness say how long?

Baroness Young

My Lords, on the timetable, the noble Lord, Lord Boston, is referring to the action following the bombings on 10th—11th March. In respect of that particular matter, official Libyan involvement was suspected. As already stated, six Libyans have been deported and four more are awaiting trial. But the link between those responsible for the bombing and the Libyan People's Bureau was not clearly established. However, we made a strong statement to the Libyans that a repetition of the 1980 incidents would have a serious effect upon our relations and that we expected the Libyan authorities to do everything in their power to prevent criminal acts by Libyan residents in this country.

On the question regarding whether we had any further control after the takeover of the Libyan People's Bureau by the revolutionary students, we did insist—as I indicated in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn—that the Libyans name a new head of the bureau. This, as I understand it, was necessary for acceptance of its diplomatic status. A name was confirmed orally on 9th April, and this was something that we accepted.

On the question concerning the diplomatic bag, this is, as I have indicated, one of the issues that will be considered in the review of the Vienna Convention. The Statement makes plain that so far we have felt that we would not want our own diplomatic bags to be scanned and have not therefore scanned the bags of others. However, this is a matter for further consideration.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question on the last point made by the noble Baroness, concerning the scanning of diplomatic bags. Does she not agree, in the light of the explosives which were in the Libyan People's Bureau, that it is almost certain that diplomatic bags were used to introduce ammunition and guns into the United Kingdom? That being so, does not the noble Baroness agree that we shall obviously have to review this matter? In the light of the general situation she has described, can she provide some indication of the countries which do scan diplomatic bags? I believe it will be helpful to the House to have that information. As I understand it, those countries are able to scan the content of diplomatic bags, notwithstanding the requirements of the Vienna Convention.

Secondly, on the question of defence equipment, while I am sure we all welcome her statement that no fresh exports will be permitted, does not the noble Baroness agree that some of us are entitled to bemildly surprised that we have been making defence equipment available to the Libyans—first, because of their terrorist attacks in this country; secondly, because of the training sessions they have been laying on for members of the Provisional IRA in Libya?

Baroness Young

My Lords, perhaps I may take the questions of the noble Lord in the reverse order to which he put them and first say something about defence sales. As the noble Lord has noted, I have referred to this subject. There is, of course, strict control over the sale of arms and paramilitary equipment at home and overseas. All such sales require export licences, which are considered on their merits. Licence applications for Libya are subject to particularly close scrutiny, and no offensive equipment is sold. There have been no new licences for defence equipment and, of course, the existing licences are being reviewed.

The noble Lord's first point was about the diplomatic bag. My understanding is that the only country which does scan bags is Kuwait. The noble Lord asked whether or not this is something which should be looked at. Our practice has always been not to scan bags even of those countries—there are three: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain—which have reservations to Article 27 of the convention. A change in practice, which we would have to give due notice, is something we have to consider. As the Statement makes clear, it is a matter for careful consideration as to whether we should do this. As I have indicated, it is one of the matters being looked at in this review.

Viscount St. Davids

My Lords, can the noble Baroness answer a question which surely must have come to the minds of many people? It is clearly going to take a long time to amend an international convention, but surely diplomacy is mostly conducted on a bilateral system. We send to a country an ambassador and that country sends one here. Is it not possible to start doing something at once simply by asking countries to keep to a code of conduct which we would be happy to keep to ourselves in our own embassies? That would make considerable headway and possibly pave the way for the final changes to the convention by thus setting up a number of bilateral situations which would, in those areas at least, clarify the matter.

Baroness Young

My Lords, that is why the Statement makes plain that we are taking unilateral and immediate action to strengthen our control over the operations of foreign missions in this country. We are doing this while the review of the Vienna Convention is taking place.

Baroness Hornsby-Smith

My Lords, would my noble friend tell us if there are any Libyan consulates sited around the country? We have not heard of their personnel being expelled. If there are any in existence, what steps are being taken to see that the terrorist activities of the bureau are not transferred to those agencies?

Baroness Young

My Lords, my understanding is that there were four Libyan premises in London. Diplomatic immunity on all four has ended but we have an obligation under the Vienna Convention to protect and respect the buildings. Of course, the property which belongs to the Libyan Government now no longer enjoys diplomatic immunity. There are no consulates outside London.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the vast majority of Moslems and Arabs regard Gaddafi as a disgrace to Islam and to the Arab world and that there is a fair prospect in due course that he will be overthrown by his own people? Indeed, the wildness and violence of his attacks on his enemies is significant from that point of view. Does the noble Baroness agree that policies of intervention designed to destabilise the réegime, perhaps led by the United States, are unlikely to succeed and might well be counter-productive?

Baroness Young

My Lords, I have no doubt that Arab countries, as other countries, condemn these acts of terrorism which offend against the international community. On the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I do not wish to speculate on United States policy.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, may I now ask the question which I inadvertently put earlier to my noble friend Lord Elton regarding the possible undesirability of the location of embassies in the heart of central London?

Baroness Young

Yes, my Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. I had meant to answer the question he put earlier on the Statement read by my noble friend Lord Elton. I hope that the Statement not only makes clear that we have severed diplomatic relations with the Libyan Government, but goes on to say that there are a number of other policies which we can follow to strengthen our position. I quote again from the Statement: We shall be ready to use this power"— that is, to take action on conduct which is incompatible with diplomatic status— as an exemplary measure against any mission". I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that that answers his point about diplomatic missions that offend in central London.