§ 3.48 p.m.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the request by Her Majesty's Government to the Syrian Government to withdraw three members of the Syrian Embassy from London. The Statement is as follows:
§ "This action followed a meeting between the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Sir Antony Acland, and the Syrian ambassador, Dr. Haydar, on 1st May. Sir Antony raised with Dr. Haydar allegations about Syrian involvement in certain terrorist activities in this country. On behalf of the police Sir Antony asked that the ambassador should waive diplomatic immunity of three attachés on his staff to enable the police to ask them questions about these allegations. On 5th May, the ambassador replied that the Syrian Government were not willing to allow diplomatic immunity to be waived but would permit interviews with members of his staff on Syrian Embassy premises.
§ "The Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed the Metropolitan Police of the terms on which the Syrian Government were prepared to allow questioning to be carried out. After careful consideration the Metropolitan Police concluded that interviews under such conditions could not result in evidence which might be used in court and could not assist their investigation. When the ambassador called on 10th May the Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Ewen Fergusson, therefore told him that the refusal of the Syrian authorities to meet our request for a waiver of diplomatic immunity to allow the allegations against three members of his embassy to be fully investigated was unacceptable. The ambassador was then told that the British Government required the withdrawal of the three attaches within seven days.
§ "Yesterday the Syrian Government requested the withdrawal of three members of the diplomatic staff of our embassy in Damascus. This retaliation is regrettable and totally unjustified.
§ "We are now considering whether there is cause for any additional measures against Syria. It will be necessary to take into account all factors affecting our bilateral relations with Syria. These include the level of the diplomatic staff whom the Syrians have asked us to withdraw, and the need to protect British subjects in Syria. We shall of course bear in mind the commitments entered into by EC Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg and by the economic summit in Tokyo. We shall also take account of the continuing investigations into the responsibility of various countries for terrorist activity."
§ My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement. Like his right honourable friend, we totally condemn international terrorism and will support all 976 effective steps taken to stamp it out. I also agree with the statement that the Syrian Government's retaliatory action is totally regrettable and unjustified.
May I put two or three short questions to the noble Lord? First, were the Government satisfied beyond any doubt that the three members of the Syrian embassy staff were involved in the E1 A1 bomb plot? Can he say whether the British Government have evidence, in addition to any evidence provided by Israeli intelligence? Is the trial of the man arrested in connection with the E1 A1 bomb to be proceeded with? Is there any truth in the report that the Syrians and not the Libyans were in fact responsible for the Berlin bombing in early April? Again, is evidence accumulating that Syria is more involved in international terrorism than any other Arab country at the present time?
Against that background, is it not also necessary to advise caution so as to avoid an escalation of the threat to regional peace in places such as the Golan Heights and South Lebanon?
§ Lord McNairMy Lords, we, too, thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement. With regard to the conversations with the Syrian ambassador, we support the action that the Government were trying to take and which they did take. We deplore the not unexpected refusal of His Excellency to waive immunity in order that the allegations against certain members of his staff could be further investigated. We deplore also the ritual tit-for-tat expulsion of our diplomats from Damascus.
The most interesting part of the Statement is of course the final paragraph, which says:
We are now considering whether there is cause for any additional measures against Syria.If there is such cause, may the measures be diplomatic or economic? They could be bilateral on a Community basis or by the United Nations. We on these Benches are convinced that of our defence forces it is only the intelligence services which can be usefully, sensibly and effectively used against terrorism. We should be most interested to hear whether that is also the view of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords. There was no real mystery about the remarks towards the end of the Statement to which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred. What was being considered was a response to the expulsion of the three British diplomats from Damascus. We are considering whether that calls for any further reaction from us.
As for the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, he will be aware that one person is in custody with regard to the attempt on the Israeli aeroplane. I can say nothing more about that because that matter is of course now sub judice. As for the three Syrian diplomats whom we have asked to leave, the matters about which the police wished to question them were of course for the police and not for Her Majesty's Government.
§ Lord ThorneycroftMy Lords, if there were any evidence which linked those Syrians with anything so grave as the actual plot against the E1 A1 aeroplane, is 977 there any rule of diplomatic privilege or otherwise which would inhibit their arrest and charges being made?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, my noble friend is of course posing a purely hypothetical question. At this stage nothing is proved.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Syria has a worse record of state-supported terrorism than Libya, especially in its support for the Abu Nidal group which presents a serious threat to leading Palestinians, apart from anyone else? Will the Government also carefully note that for wider reasons an opportunity to attack Syria with American support might not be unwelcome to the Israeli Government?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, we have made clear on a number of occasions our concern about continuing reports of Syrian provision of facilities for the Abu Nidal group, to which the noble Lord refers. The Syrians have assured us that they do not support Abu Nidal's terrorist activities.
§ Lord KilbrackenMy Lords, will the noble Lord answer the important question asked by my noble leader about the suggestion we are now hearing that the bombing of the Berlin discotheque was attributable to the Syrians and not the Libyans?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I have heard those allegations but I am not in a position to comment upon them.