| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): The Home Secretary said that the aircraft made intermediate stops at Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Russia before landing finally at Stansted. Intervention by the Foreign Secretary on his forthcoming visit to Moscow may be all very well, but we need concerted action by the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal to ensure that no nation permits hijacked aircraft to proceed blithely on their way. It is all very well to talk about getting the Russians on board, but we need a total international ban.
Mr. Straw: I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise on air transport issues. He has made a strong point and I shall ensure that his comments are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): All fair-minded people understand the complexity of the decisions that my right hon. Friend now has to take, particularly hon. Members who have an airport in their constituency. I hope that the incident will not be dragged into the current racist campaign that some parties are waging against asylum seekers. We need to weigh the import of our actions and words on such issues carefully. Two weeks ago in my constituency a 49-year-old Lithuanian was about to be deported, but he was too distressed to be accepted by the airline. He was found hanging at Harmondsworth detention centre the following morning.
Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is a conflict of international obligations on the issue and it is difficult to judge where the public interest lies. I have thought about the issue carefully and believe that the need to prevent and deter hijacking and other forms of international terrorism must be paramount. Nobody should benefit, including those from countries with considerable political instability. Such terrorist actions must not be allowed to continue.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South): For a plane of that type to fly the 2,000-odd nautical miles from Moscow to London would take more than three hours. When were United Kingdom authorities properly informed that the plane intended to land here? Did those on the plane request to land in other countries during the flight from Moscow? If so, which countries refused permission? The plane landed three times before it ended up in the UK. All three of those countries have regular flights to the United Kingdom. Is it not time that we said that those flights will not be permitted to land here if those countries are not prepared to accept their obligations under the law--obligations that all three have signed up to? That is the only way in which hijacking will be outlawed completely.
Mr. Straw: I understand that we were given three-quarters of an hour's notice. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, my understanding is that inquiries were made by the pilot in respect of possible landings at two other airports in Europe, but that no formal requests to land were made in respect of those
other airports. On the hon. Gentleman's wider point, we will make clear the need for all signatory countries of the international conventions against hijacking properly to accept their obligations at the acute point where they arise.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): If the Home Secretary has any relatives in Aldershot, he will know that they will warmly welcome his robust attitude to the problem and, especially, his recognition of where Britain's best interests lie in terms of the conflicting international obligations to which he has referred. If he is to exercise his discretion in the case of those asylum applications--and I hope that he will send out the clearest possible signal that they will not be accepted, otherwise he will encourage further hijackings--it is imperative that the courts do not seek to undermine his judgment in the matter. He is at least accountable to the House, and through the House to the people of Britain, whereas the judges are not.
Mr. Straw: I have no relatives in Aldershot, so far as I am aware. I have made it clear that I have to make my decisions subject to the law and in accordance with the framework of the law. It happens that as a result of decisions made by this elected House, there are rights of appeal in certain circumstances for those who are refused applications relating to immigration and asylum, and those decisions are made ultimately by the courts. It is plainly not possible in current circumstances for that framework to be changed suddenly.
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): As a former Brentwood councillor, may I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in welcoming the Home Secretary's intention to be robust in this matter? I am sure that people throughout the country will be reassured by that. Is the Home Secretary worried about why it was that the destination of choice of the people on the aeroplane was the United Kingdom? Does he know why that was the case? Is he worried that we may have been seen as a soft touch? If so, will he bear in mind that people in this country and abroad need to be given unequivocal signals from the Home Secretary and the Government that this country will not be a soft touch and should not be regarded as a destination of choice in any remotely similar circumstances in the future?
Mr. Straw: I was more than worried that this country was the destination for the plane; I was deeply concerned that it was the destination and that innocent people's lives were at risk, and I was angry about the hijacking itself, a sentiment that has been expressed by everyone else concerned. I do not believe that the language that the right hon. Gentleman has used today is appropriate. As I have said, in the past 11 years there have been 18 hijackings across Europe. It happens that two of those, including the one that concluded today, have ended up in the United Kingdom, and the other 16 have taken place elsewhere in
the European Union. It is incumbent on all civilised states to ensure that as many measures as are practicable and possible are put in place to prevent and to deter hijacking.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): The fact that the record of Britain's skies and airports has been so comparatively safe over the past 18 years means that this week's hijacking has sent shock waves throughout the United Kingdom. Stansted airport is familiar to me and, indeed, I travel between my constituency and Westminster through that airport. I know also that many of my constituents set off on holiday from that airport, and several of them have rung up today to ask for a robust interpretation by the Home Secretary of the international conventions that apply, for the reason given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It would be deeply worrying if Britain were to be seen as an easy option, perhaps even within the European Union, for hijackers.
I pay tribute to the Essex police and emergency services, those who work in and use the airport, and those who live nearby, who have had a tense time over the past three months, because of the Korean Air disaster and the hijacking. While a peaceful solution was reached on this occasion, it is acutely important that we are not seen as an easy option for future hijackers.
Mr. Straw:
I do not want to rehearse the discussion that took place last Wednesday, a week ago, about our asylum situation. The fact is that we are not an easy option. As the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 comes into force, we are putting into place very robust arrangements which, in any analysis, are more robust than those which were put in place in 1996. Of course I accept that we have to be robust; we have to send out the clearest signals that we are not entertaining hijackers in this way, and that is what we are seeking to do.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
I do not want to embarrass the Home Secretary by heaping further praise on the firm line that he has taken today. However, I was particularly impressed when he said that the criminals--the hijackers--must face the full rigour of the law. I also noted that he said that he would be sending people back to Afghanistan, or possibly that area, as soon as is practically possible. The hijacking took place in Afghan air space, of an Afghan airliner, with Afghan people. The crime was committed in Afghanistan. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that in his discussions with Law Officers, he will be looking at returning the criminals as soon as possible to the place where the crime was committed?
Mr. Straw:
Under international obligations, it is a responsibility, as I understand it, for those who are directly subject to the hijacking to take appropriate criminal action. Therefore, it falls initially to the Essex police, not the Afghan authorities, to take action in this case. I am clear that that must be the appropriate course of action.
As far as removals are concerned, I spoke about removals from this country. Precisely the country to which people are removed remains to be determined.
2.7 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to early-day motion 340 in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and other hon. Members about Senator Pinochet? You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in October 1998, shortly after the Senator's arrest, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) put down an early-day motion applauding that arrest, or words to that effect, and I tabled an amendment saying that the appropriate jurisdiction for consideration of the matter was the senator's own country, Chile, to which he should be returned at the earliest possible date. Madam Speaker declared then that such an early-day motion was strictly outside the regulations of the House because the matter was sub judice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |