HL Deb 01 May 1984 vol 451 cc481-9

4 p.m.

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

My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if, with the leave of the House, I now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about matters connected with the shooting incident in St. James's Square on 17th April. The Statement is as follows:

"On 25th April I reported to the House the facts of the initial incident, and subsequent events up to the time of that statement. Today I shall complete my report of the events. I shall also deal with the public order issues connected with demonstrations and state how I intend to use my powers for the immigration control of certain nationals in future.

"My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will then give an account of our dealings with the Libyan People's Bureau and the Libyan authorities in Tripoli. He will also deal with the steps which have been and will be taken in the diplomatic field in response to these events.

"On the afternoon of Tuesday, 24th April, Mr. Bagdadi, a member of the so-called Revolutionary Committee who had not been in the bureau at the time of the incident, was deported. On Friday 27th April, Mr. Matouk, another member of the Revolutionary Committee, was also deported.

"On the evening of 25th April, a representative of the Libyan authorities, Colonel Shaibi, arrived in this country to discuss the arrangements for the departure from this country of those in the Libyan diplomatic buildings in London. The discussions relating to this were also attended by a Saudi diplomat as a representative of the power nominated to look after Libyan interests here after the breach of diplomatic relations. Colonel Shaibi pressed that the Libyan authorities should retain the use of one of their buildings after Sunday, 29th April. But is was made clear to him that all the official premises were to be closed from Sunday night. The Libyans where also told that after midnight on 29th April, when the buildings ceased to be diplomatic premises, the police would require to search them to satisfy themselves that no weapons or explosives were inside and that the buildings were safe. They were told that a represen-tative of the protecting power—the Saudi Arabian Government—could be present if they wished. They were informed that, as a matter of safety, arrange-ments would have to be made to ensure that those leaving the people's bureau building were unarmed; and that they would be asked to answer questions to assist the police in investigating the murder of Woman Police Constable Fletcher.

"During the course of Thursday 26th April, the Libyans removed their diplomatic bags from the bureau building. On the same day some 112 people, consisting of the families of Libyan diplomats, as well as some diplomatic staff from the buildings other than that in St. James's Square, left the country on a Libyan Air Lines flight. Late on the evening of Thursday 26th April, the detailed departure arrangements for those inside the bureau were finalised. These arrangements were put into effect on the following day, Friday 27th April. The 30 people in the Libyan People's Bureau left the building in groups of five, beginning at about 9.50 a.m. After they had left the building, the police made sure that they were not carrying explosives or weapons.

"The search was carried out by the use of electronic devices. The whole operation was witnessed by representatives of the Saudi Arabian, Syrian and Turkish Embassies. The 30 people who came out of the building were then driven, accompanied by the diplomatic observers, to the Civil Service College at Sunningdale where they arrived shortly before noon. After an initial explanation of the procedure to be adopted during the remainder of the day, the police then proceeded with their inquiries, witnessed by two of the diplomatic observers. The identity of each of the Libyans was established by reference to their passports and other documents. They were invited to provide a full set of fingerprints, but declined to do so. They were then invited by the police to answer a number of questions. Each Libyan was questioned by two police officers using interpreters where necessary. Throughout the whole of this process the diplomatic observers were free to go wherever they wished in the building.

"With the questioning completed, and the aircraft at Heathrow ready to return them to Libya, the group were escorted by the police to Heathrow, immigration formalities having been completed at Sunningdale. The aircraft left Heathrow at 7.30 p.m.

"At 4.10 p.m. yesterday afternoon the police entered the former bureau building through the back door, which was opened in the presence of a representative of the Saudi Arabian Embassy by means of a rifle shot. The building was first examined by Royal Engineers and anti-terrorist squad explosives experts, who satisfied themselves that it was safe, and was subsequently searched by anti-terrorist squad police officers for evidential purposes. This search is continuing. So far two hand guns and a quantity of ammunition have been discovered in the course of the search of the former bureau premises. Firearms residue has been found on the carpet below the window from which the weapon was believed to have been fired, and a spent cartridge case of the same calibre as the weapon used on 17th April has been found in the same room. Elsewhere in the building the police have found accessories for sub-machine guns of the same calibre.

"As I made clear last Wednesday, the police's view was that they would not be able to obtain evidence to sustain a prosecution for the murder of WPC Fletcher without the co-operation of those concerned in the bureau.

"None of the police inquiries since then, whether at Sunningdale, St. James's Square or elsewhere, or these discoveries, has altered the position. The police remain of the view that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution against any individual. Nonetheless, they are of the view that it is likely that the murder was committed by one of two people who were in the bureau. Both of these possessed diplomatic immunity. They therefore could not have been prosecuted under English law even if the necessary evidence had been available. The questioning at Sunningdale and other evidence obtained may well, however, provide information relevant to the investigation of bombings in London and Manchester in respect of which some people have already been charged. The information obtained at Sunningdale continues to be assessed.

"Since my last Statement to the House I have been considering whether the law on demonstra-tions and marches, as it applies to such events held by foreign nationals, or generally, can helpfully be amended. Neither the police nor I have power to ban a static demonstration in advance. But the police already have extensive powers, in pursuance of their duty to preserve the peace, to regulate the conduct of demonstrations and to prevent a demonstration assembling, or to disperse one already assembled, if they have reasonable cause to believe that such action is necessary to preserve or restore public order. As to marches, the Public Order Act 1936 provides powers to impose conditions or, if those will be inadequate, to ban the holding of public processions, in order to prevent serious public disorder.

"I understand the feelings which often lie behind suggestions that demonstrations and marches by foreign nationals should be subject to special controls and, possibly, prohibition. I doubt, however, whether it would be right for either the police or the Government to be empowered to pick and choose which demonstrations were permissible and which were not, in relation to either the nationality of those concerned or the subject about which they were demonstrating. We should remember who committed the offence on 17th April: the demonstrators in St. James's Square were the victims, not the perpetrators, of violence.

"But we must be certain that there are adequate powers to prevent warring factions from fighting their battles on the streets of London, as the right honourable Member for Manchester Gorton very properly said last week. The House will know that I have in hand a comprehensive review of public order law, including the issue of the control and regulation of static demonstrations. The conclusion of the review, and the announcement of the results, will now be expedited.

"I have also considered what additional immigration measures can be taken quickly, and within the present rules, to bring home the fact that we are not prepared to tolerate nationals of other countries bringing on to the streets of Britain violence for their own political ends. The House will already be aware of the instructions I have given to my immigration officials in dealing with Libyans following the break in diplomatic relations. I then said that I would not hesitate to use my powers of removal or personal certification if I was satisfied that there was evidence that the presence here of any individual was against the national interest; and I can inform the House that I have today signed detention orders against a further six Libyan nationals whom it is intended to deport.

"As far as Libyan nationals generally are concerned, a number of further restrictions will now be introduced for any who, under the rules, might be considered for visas. Visitors will receive permission to stays of shorter duration, adapted to the circumstances of each case; measures will be taken to ensure those admitted observe the conditions imposed. Libyan students who come to Britain must be bona fide students and we expect them to pursue their studies, not indulge in violence. Yet there is reason to believe that some of them have been prone to do just that. I intend therefore to tighten up immigration control affecting them. Any Libyan student who qualifies for admission under the rules will not normally be given permission to stay for more than one term at a time; anyone failing to meet the requirements in any respect will be refused an extension; each application or re-application will be accompanied by stringent checks. In particular we shall have to be fully satisfied that a student is in fact properly pursuing a full-time course of study. Similar restrictive measures will apply to other categories of applicant as the rules allow.

"At present foreign nationals are normally required to register with the police on arrival only if their period of stay is more than six months. In view of the announcements I have made, however, any Libyan national seeking entry under these new restrictions will be liable to register with the police. There must be no misunderstanding by those involved of the swift and serious consequences of future misbehaviour.

"Libyan nationals required to register with the police will be asked to sign a declaration recognising the consequences of their indulging in violence for political reasons, and their intention not to do so. This document will be affixed to the police registration form. This should also be a warning to the nationals of other countries. I am ready to apply similar restrictions to others who demonstrably bring into Britain their own political violence.

"In setting out these measures, which will be supported by appropriate instructions to visa-issuing posts abroad, I have been concerned not to undermine our tradition as a country of safe refuge and asylum. No one from a country to which such restrictions apply who wishes peacefully to express his views in public has anything to fear. But those who abuse our hospitality with violence will cease to receive it".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.14 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement which was made by his right honourable and learned friend in another place. May I say—and I get no pleasure from it on behalf of my noble friends—that in several respects we can only regard this Statement as being unsatisfactory and incomplete in regard to incidents which have brought humiliation in their train so far as the annals of this country are concerned. When the previous Statement was made on 25th April, both here and in another place the Opposition took the responsible attitude, while our ambassador and his family and the diplomatic staff were in Tripoli, of using very measured language in regard to the whole incident and in seeing that the difficulties that undoubtedly faced Ministers at that moment were not in any way added to by anything that was said from these Benches.

The Statement has been described as a completion of the record of events. There is no reference to any inquiry, and no reference to the matters which preceded these events. There is no doubt that once these events had occurred there was very little alternative—and this I freely admit on behalf of my noble friends—to the course of action which Her Majesty's Government took, and I refer in particular to the action of the Secretary of State for home affairs.

None of us can swallow without indignation the fact that presumably now there will be no prosecution of the murderer of the gallant young policewoman, in spite of the fact that the Statement reveals what has been found by way of spent ammunition in the very room from which this shot was supposed to have been fired. Indeed, the Statement reveals that apparently the suspects have been narrowed down to one of two persons, both of whom were diplomats.

That has to be swallowed. The Vienna Convention and its rules have to be swallowed because without international law there would be even more international disorder than we now have. But none of these provisions in the Statement for what is now to happen to Libyan students and what is now to happen to Libyan nationals, and what happened at Heathrow Airport, really adds up to a cautious, careful course of conduct in any degree.

This is not hindsight. I am going to remind the Minister and the House, with the leave and the patience of the House on such an important matter, of the background of all this on our own shores, let alone what issued from Libya. In February 1980 there was a declaration from Libya that the opponents of their Government would be liquidated; on 11th April 1980 a Libyan journalist was killed outside Regents Park Mosque; on 25th April a Libyan lawyer was shot dead at his Kensington home; on 17th September three Libyans were jailed for life for murder in London; on 12th November of the same year two Libyan children were poisoned in Hampstead; and on 30th November a Libyan student was stabbed to death in Manchester.

Coming to 1983, the General People's Congress issued an official warning that: every citizen is responsible for the liquidation of the enemies of the people's revolution", and threatened states which "shelter and assist" exiles considered hostile to the revolution. Then, in February 1984—as recently as that—claims of "bourgeoisie lifestyles" led to the storming of the Libyan Embassy in London by "students" who proclaimed it the people's bureau. On 15th April—and we knew this—the Students Revolutionary Committee in Tripoli announced that two students would be publicly hanged for treason. On 16th April the very day before this tragic incident occurred in London gallows were constructed next to a portrait of Gaddafi at the entrance to the university in Tripoli and the two students, who were in their twenties, were brought out before thousands and publicly hanged. Between February and April nothing was done in regard to Libyan students. We hear that now, after this tragic event, restrictions will be imposed and inquiries will be made.

If ever there was a case for a public inquiry, even on the score that I mentioned—some independent inquiry, even a independent private inquiry, the result of which would be publicised—it is this one. In addition to that, the mystery has not yet been solved of that radio message that was supposed to have been de-coded and arrived before, so it is suggested, these events occured, and which talked in terms of a direct order for force to be used against those who were to assemble in St. James's Square. The questions go unanswered: did the message arrive? What did it say? To whom was it communicated? What was the interval of time? Was there any chance to take proper action? It must be the responsibility of any Government in these circumstances, your Lordships may think, to have an independent inquiry.

My last point is that following on that, on 20th April, there was that dreadful explosion at Terminal 2 at Heathrow Airport. Fortunately, injuries were limited. Presumably, even after 17th April, security measures had not been taken even to examine the luggage coming from Libya of Libyan passengers. There must be an inquiry to ensure that if there has been laxity—and prima facie there would appear to have been laxity in these matters—it is never perpetrated again and no other policeman or policewoman who guards us as public officials and officers, with great courage, should be endangered in the same sort of way.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for repeating the Statement here, I should like to put two questions to him arising from it. First, is he aware that we on these Benches warmly welcome the Home Secretary's statement that he is to strengthen immigration checks on Libyan visitors to this country? We welcome his statement that Libyan students who come to Britain must be bona fide students and must not indulge in violence. But why have we had to wait four years for this statement to be made? Is he aware that Colonel Gaddafi has made his position on the matter absolutely clear since the beginning of 1980, that he intended to eliminate his opponents in this country and other countries in Western Europe? As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded him a few moments ago, there has been a series of terrorist outrages in this country, and in the light of that it seems quite extraordinary that earlier steps were not taken to check far more vigorously Libyan visitors to the United Kingdom.

Secondly, is the Minister aware that some of us were surprised by the Home Secretary's Statement on the radio on Sunday that there was no evidence that the Libyan People's Bureau had been used as a terrorist base? Would he not agree on the basis of what the Metropolitan Police have already discovered that it clearly was? Would he also not agree that in the light of the scale of the terrorist attacks committed by Colonel Gaddafi's agents in the last four years the implication of the Home Secretary's statement raises serious questions about the quality of our counter-terrorist intelligence operations in this country? Would he not agree in the light of that that it is now most urgently necessary to have a vigorous independent inquiry into this whole situation, and that this should be pursued as urgently as possible?

4.25 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their response to this Statement, I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in the rather philippic style in which he addressed the subject. I entirely understand that there is a sense of aggrievement and frustration, which I entirely share, as does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, over the fact that we are not in a position to apprehend and punish the perpetrator of this foul deed. But we have to look to the future as well as to the past.

As to the past, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, adduced a chronology of alarms and excursions which preceded this foul event. Coming from Tripoli there has been for a long time a series of sounds and gestures which can only be called, "Wolf, wolf!" Such warnings as we had of the events of 17th April, as I told your Lordships on 25th April, were routine in their nature. As to information of another sort about which the noble Lord inquired, I can only repeat what we said to your Lordships last time that we had no indication, prior to the events, that events of that sort were about to take place.

Both noble Lords have suggested an inquiry. We do not believe that an inquiry of the sort that has been suggested would serve a useful purpose. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already written to Dr. David Owen in these terms. Any kind of external inquiry into intelligence matters would risk compromising sources and damaging operational effectiveness and the operational effectiveness and value of the services. Such risks should be run only when there are overriding reasons of public policy for doing so and in the present case we are clear that it would not be justifiable to incur these risks.

Your Lordships, I think, have two things in mind: one is an understandable wish for vengeance. The other is a proper wish for deterrence. The second half of the Statement dealt with the measures which my right honourable friend is taking, and has taken, to control the threat, now its nature is more precisely known. I am glad that he was able to welcome them—

The Earl of Kimberley

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has any information about the Libyan school, the Kingsley School in Glebe Place, Chelsea, and whether that has yet been searched?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I said on 25th April, which was, if your Lordships will remember, that it was under observation and that we had no reason to suppose that it was improperly used in the sense which my noble friend infers.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, does not the history of the past few weeks give rise to the question that it may possibly be time to consider banning the existence of embassies, particularly those of countries of somewhat dubious propriety, occupying our charming buildings in the heart of London, to the potential detriment of the building, harm and disturbance to the public and general inconvenience to all? Could we not perhaps arrange some place on the outskirts of our city where these embassies could be contained and looked after, if necessary, without interfering with our daily lives?

Lord Elton

My Lords, your Lordships will know that my noble friend Lady Young will be making the Statement on the Foreign Office side of this matter and, although I am sorely tempted to join in argument with my noble friend, I think that I had better leave it to her.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, the noble Lord has detailed a number of acts of violence against Libyan nationals for which the Libyan Government are responsible, but he has not referred to the aid given by the Libyan authorities to the IRA in the past. These are acts of violence, in effect, against nationals of this country. In what sense is it possible for the Government to tolerate aid given to the IRA by foreign governments? Will he say something about this?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am not in possession of information about aid which may have been given to the IRA. Only do I know that on numerous occasions the threat of doing this has been adduced by Libyan diplomats seeking to achieve their own ends about how their affairs should be managed with this country.

Lord Mayhew

If the noble Lord will allow me, I do not believe that it has been denied by the Libyan authorities that they have given arms and other assistance to the IRA. This is a most important aspect of the case and I should have expected him to refer to it.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I would not expect them to deny anything of that nature. I would not wish your Lordships to be in any doubt that we regard such support as being entirely intolerable and an act of the greatest hostility to this country. But I have no chapter and verse to give to the noble Lord. If some comes to hand, I will let him have it.

Lord Soames

My Lords, in view of the rumours that have been rife recently in the press, would my noble friend confirm that no intelligence was received by the Government which might have led them to believe that violent action would be taken from the Libyan People's Bureau against the demonstrations that were going to take place the following day?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I can repeat what I said before: that we had no such information to lead us to expect that to happen.

Lord Boston of Faversham

My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister reconsider one point which he made in one of his replies just now—that is, the outcome which is sought by Members of your Lordships' House? Many of us would hope that vengeance would not form a part of British law, however proper that feeling within us might well be. What is sought, I should have thought, by all Members of your Lordships' House is justice. Can he say more specifically whether the two persons who have been identified, one of them as having been likely to have committed this outrageous crime, were subjected to the customary scrutiny that any proposed occupant of a mission, even one of this kind, should have been and customarily is subjected to, and whether in the course of that any shortcomings were revealed?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the two people about whom the suspicions are harboured were both accredited diplomats who had been through the proper process for the appointment of diplomats. No diplomats were accredited to the Libyan People's Bureau after 5th February which, your Lordships will remember, is where events started to take their more sinister turn.

Lord Somers

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is any truth in the account printed in one of our daily newspapers that the Libyan authorities themselves have stated that they can name the person who committed this murder?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. I should not be surprised if it were true. I should not expect to be able to endorse it.

Earl de la Warr

My Lords, could my noble friend help me by commenting in any way on an announcement that was made on the radio today, on London Broadcasting, to the effect that the Prime Minister had ordered an inquiry but that the results were not going to be published?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I did not hear the broadcast. The Government are acutely interested in the whole of these proceedings and they will not neglect to look at them. As to the setting up of a formal inquiry, I have already given the answer.