| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): Given the Government's dramatic reduction in police numbers--by
1,700 since they came to power, including a further 27 in Cheshire in just the past 10 months--and given that the Home Secretary is here to listen to my point, will the Leader of the House make time for a full-day's debate on how the Government have let down my constituents in Cheshire and the people in this country, whose fears are rising in direct proportion to the reduction in police numbers that has happened under this Government? Will the Home Secretary write to every hon. Member to tell us how that is affecting our constituents?
Mrs. Beckett: As a result of the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, police numbers in Cheshire will rise by an additional 86 over the next two or three years. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that police numbers have fallen over recent years. They fell under the party which he supports, and which gave freedom to chief police officers to make decisions on how they spend their budgets and to what degree they spent them on police numbers. It is no good Conservative Members complaining about the outcome.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): This morning we learned that the Prime Minister had had long, friendly and constructive conversations with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), even though the Prime Minister used the whole Millbank team to block the hon. Gentleman's progress to becoming First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly. We need the Prime Minister to come here to make a statement on the muddle that he has got himself and the country into with the devolutionary experiments. We would also learn how soon he intends to have jolly and friendly conversations with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
Mrs. Beckett: The Prime Minister has much better things to do with his time.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Could we have an early debate on the financing of the BBC? I am sure that all hon. Members realise that the two channels of the BBC are the only ones, out of the hundreds available, that are funded through a compulsory licence fee. Is the BBC's public service remit being fulfilled when the only farmers who could be found to say anything nice on the BBC about Government policy were the fictional farmers, Pat and Tony Archer? Although Greg Dyke is willing to ensure that positive spins are put on Government policy, that does not justify continuing to have a compulsory licence fee.
Mrs. Beckett: That was a rather convoluted way of asking a question about agriculture. Yes, of course the BBC has a public service remit, which it carries out. As for the notion that it is only on "The Archers" that anyone can ever be heard to say anything in favour of Government policy on agriculture or against that of the Conservative party, all I can say is that I have frequently heard members of the National Farmers Union doing precisely that.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is now great interest on both sides of the House in having a debate on the Government's constitutional reform programme? That would give us an opportunity to reflect on the successes
or otherwise of the devolution settlement in Wales and in Scotland, on the interesting impact of the reforms in the House of Lords, and on the interesting impact of proportional representation. Most importantly, it would give the right hon. Lady and the Government the opportunity to let the House and the country know what further reforms they have in mind.
Mrs. Beckett: Given the repeated propensity of Conservative Members to raise this matter--despite the fact that I have already pointed out to them that they now say that they might support a Government containing Plaid Cymru, which is in favour of the break-up of the United Kingdom--it is a mistake for them to call for such a debate. However tempting the prospect is of a debate that would expose the shambles and misjudgment of Conservative party policy on this matter, I fear that I cannot undertake to provide time for one.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): The right hon. Lady has disappointed everyone in the House with her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Surely she is confusing vacancies in the police with actual numbers. Is she not aware that since her Government came to office, police numbers have dropped by 1,700, and a third of those losses have occurred in the past six months? Is she not slightly embarrassed that when the Home Secretary promised 3,000 more officers, the immediate reaction of 632 long-serving officers was to leave the force? Does she agree with Mr. Glen Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, when he says:
- "The bottom line . . . is that they give with one hand and take away with the other."?
Mr. Pickles: Yes, I am indeed asking for a debate--for a whole day, maybe two.
Madam Speaker: I want to have it on the record.
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have already reminded the hon. Member for Eddisbury
(Mr. O'Brien) and others, that police numbers fell under the Government whom they supported. The budget that we pursued for the first couple of years was the one that they put in place, so if they are complaining about the consequences of that budget, they are complaining about actions that they supported.
A remarkably consistent feature of this exciting and enjoyable episode in the House this week is that Conservative Members are continually calling for increased spending on a whole range of policies, while claiming to be in favour of cuts in public spending. It is time that they made up their minds.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
I am sure that it was only by an accidental oversight that the Leader of the House failed to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on being named yesterday Opposition Member of Parliament of the year.
Can we have an urgent full-day's debate, in Government time, on the crucial question of political bias in television programmes in general and those of the BBC in particular? Does not the right hon. Lady agree that such a debate would be especially timely in the light of yesterday's article in the Financial Times by Mr. Christopher Dunkley, former host of the BBC's "Feedback" programme, who has spilt the beans and said that the BBC is biased in favour of the left and against the right, in direct defiance of its charter obligations? Do we not need an urgent debate about that important matter?
Mrs. Beckett:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for informing me of the success of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth); I was not aware of it, and indeed I congratulate him on it.
I have not seen the article to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) refers, and I am not acquainted with Mr. Christopher Dunkley, but he does not sound like an unbiased, objective individual.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw):
With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Stansted hijacking.
The House will, I know, have been pleased to learn that the hijacking of an Ariana Airlines plane at Stansted ended peacefully this morning. The plane had been on an internal flight within Afghanistan from Kabul to Maser-e-Sharif on Sunday 6 February with 186 passengers and crew on board when it was hijacked. After initial stops in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, the plane landed in Moscow where it was refuelled.
While the plane was on the ground in Moscow, we made it clear to the Russian authorities that the flight should not expect to come to the United Kingdom. None the less, the authorities in Moscow allowed the plane to take off again after, I understand, the hijackers had asked for information about a number of western destinations.
When we learned that the aircraft was heading for the United Kingdom, we decided to allow it to land, in accordance with our international obligations. There were serious concerns about the safety of those on board, given the threats that had been made earlier to kill passengers, uncertainty over fuel levels and reports of technical problems.
The plane landed at Stansted at about 2 am on Monday 7 February. Contingency plans were activated and Essex police took control of the incident. I should like to pay tribute to the patience, skill and professionalism of the police and all those who supported them to bring this dreadful incident to a peaceful conclusion. I believe that those sentiments are shared by the whole House and the country.
Eight hostages were released on Monday and another man left the aircraft on Tuesday. Four crew members also managed to escape from the cockpit on Tuesday. A fifth crew member was ejected from the aircraft early on Wednesday. Then, at 3.30 this morning, 85 more people left the aeroplane, followed at 5.45 am by the remainder on the plane.
It had been agreed that two of the hostage takers would leave the aircraft for a face-to-face discussion with the negotiators before the remaining hostages were released. No clear political demands were made at that meeting or at any other time following the plane's arrival at Stansted, although statements were made to the negotiators about the political situation in Afghanistan.
Hijacking is a very serious terrorist offence in this country and in all other countries that are signatories to the international conventions against hijacking. A total of 19 people so far have been arrested by the Essex police. The House will understand why I cannot at this stage go into any further detail about the legal process involving them.
All those released from the aircraft are having their health assessed, and a process of interviews is under way. We obviously wish to ensure that those who were taken hostage are able quickly to return to their homes in Afghanistan. We are making arrangements accordingly.
There has been considerable concern about whether this hijacking was an attempt to seek political asylum in this country, both in respect of the hijackers and any accomplices, and in respect of some of the other passengers on board.
Let me first make it clear that in the talks that led to the peaceful ending of this hijacking, no undertakings of any kind concerning asylum or any other matter were given by representatives of the British Government. The surrender from the plane was unconditional.
Of the 165 people on board, 60 have so far told immigration officers that they wish to apply for asylum, together with an additional 14 dependants. Most of the remainder have yet to make their wishes known.
Like other countries, we are bound by international conventions relating to refugees, but we are also bound by the clearest international obligations to prevent and deter hijacking. I must tell the House that, as a matter of public policy, I believe that the clearest and most unequivocal signals must be sent out so as to discourage hijacking, whatever its motive.
In the special circumstances of this hijacking, I have given instructions that I personally will make the determination of any application for asylum made by persons on board the aircraft.
While I must and will act in accordance with the law, I am determined that nobody should consider that there can be any benefit to be obtained by hijacking. Subject to compliance with all legal requirements, I would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable.
1.12 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |