| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hoon: I will not give way.
I have mentioned a range of deployments. It is important for us not to forget that we are deployed here in the United Kingdom as well. We still have 15,000 troops in Northern Ireland, and I am confident that the House will join me in paying tribute to their work.
Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made a statement to the House about political progress in Northern Ireland, and I join
him in wishing the process well. As he said, the security situation in the Province has been transformed since the Good Friday agreement. We will, of course, watch developments closely, but our forces will remain at the level required to preserve the peace, and to support the civil powers in maintaining law and order.
So far, I have described our participation in operations. We are always able and willing to act with great force when that is necessary, as we have shown again this year; but across the world the wide-ranging abilities and experience of the armed forces are being put to good use to promote security and stability in other ways.
We are actively engaged in helping to restructure armed forces around the world in ways that allow them to play their full part as a component of a democratic society. That is what we mean by defence diplomacy. We are well placed to do that work: the professionalism of our people is rightly held in the highest regard. Our work will complement the excellent work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
We are expanding our outreach programme of bilateral co-operation and assistance. For example, following the return to civilian rule in Nigeria and Sierra Leone, we are actively engaged--along with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development--in reforming the security communities in both countries. In the United Kingdom, we launched a defence diplomacy scholarship scheme last month to help overseas officers and officials to develop the skills needed to lead and operate democratically accountable armed forces.
This is an enormously exciting time to be involved in such activities. The revitalisation of international organisations, and the greater willingness of many countries to play a part, mean that when crises occur the international community can act swiftly and decisively to halt aggression, to maintain or restore peace or to deal with human suffering. We are fully engaged not just in participation in such operations, but in developing the institutional framework that will ensure that we never return to global confrontation.
Let me make clear what a privilege it is to work alongside the men and women of the armed forces, and the men and women who support them. I know that the whole House will join me in recording its appreciation of their skill and courage, their talents and abilities and the support given to them by their families. As we look to the future, they are our greatest asset.
Debate adjourned.--[Mr. Pope.]
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Pope.]
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford):
On 8 December last year, the remains of three British subjects--Mr. Peter Kennedy, Mr. Rudolph Petschi and Mr. Darren Hickey--along with those of a New Zealander, Mr. Stanley Shaw, were found on the roadside in Chechnya. The four had been kidnapped in Grozny, the Chechen capital, on 3 October that year, and held in unspeakable horror. The four men had been starved, regularly beaten, and then one night woken from their sleep, kicked, beaten about the head, taken outside and beheaded. Their end was videoed. I am sure that the House will want to extend its condolences to their families. Chechnya is still in our thoughts, but, as was mentioned in the previous debate, the events there which relate to our country are still very much in the thoughts of those families.
I shall concentrate on one of those hostages, Mr. Peter Kennedy.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. McNulty.]
Mr. Keetch:
Mr. Kennedy lived in Herefordshire. I shall discuss the reasons why he went to Chechnya, the conditions that he expected, the reasons why his stay was so long delayed and what happened after he was kidnapped and eventually murdered.
On 9 December, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), answered my private notice question. He said in the presence of the Prime Minister that a company called Granger Telecom
On 9 July 1998, Granger Telecom wrote to our ambassador in Moscow asking for support in installing a mobile phone network in Chechnya, but it stated in the letter that, although it could provide the internal system, it could not link that system to the outside world. That had to be part of a separate contract--an international gateway. It was BT that, against stiff competition from Deutsche Telekom, finally won the contract.
The Government were aware from July that BT was involved. They were told again of BT's involvement at a meeting with Granger Telecom in September and told later that month that a BT engineer would have to travel to Chechnya. The first question is: why at no stage during the private notice question debate was BT's involvement not stated by the Government?
I can understand why BT wanted to keep its involvement in the affair quiet. It understood the risk of Chechnya. When it bid for and won the contract, it knew that two British aid workers, Camilla Carr and John James, by some tragic chance also constituents of mine, were being held in Chechnya.
BT nationally had what it described as an on-going relationship with Control Risks, a leading international security company. BT had already decided that it did not want to send one of its own staff to Chechnya. Indeed, it tried to train Granger Telecom staff to install the link instead, but to no avail. Therefore, BT nationally, a company that recently announced profits of £105 per second, decided to pass the decision of how to install the international link to its satellite station at Madley in Herefordshire in my constituency.
After being advised not to sent its own staff, BT in Herefordshire was asked to find someone else. Enter Mr. Peter Kennedy, a former member of staff who had taken early retirement from BT some years earlier. The staff at Madley in Herefordshire were as disturbed as anyone at what subsequently happened. They knew Peter and, in giving him that job, they thought that they were doing him a favour.
Peter had done some work overseas before. He had been to Russia on several occasions. He was approached to do the work. He was told that it would take just four days and he was offered £350 a day, plus expenses, to do it. When he was told that he would get a bodyguard, he joked about it to friends and to his wife. He thought that he was going back to Russia.
On 22 August, Peter Kennedy agreed to go, but I believe that he never knew the full risk that he was taking. I believe that he was not told exactly what the Foreign Office had told Granger Telecom, what Granger Telecom had told BT and what BT knew from its sources. That information was never passed down. One e-mail that was sent to him before he left said:
When Peter Kennedy arrived in Grozny, things began to go very wrong. He was not able to begin the installation immediately. Instead, there was a dispute as to the exact location where he was to install the satellite equipment. Should it be on the building of Granger Telecom, as he originally believed, or should it be on a hill? When that was decided, he had to prepare a base on the side of a hill to install the equipment. There then followed another dispute with Chechen television, which was worried about the potential interference as a result of the installation.
Finally, Mr. Kennedy completed the installation, not after four days, as he originally believed, but after 10. His final act was to start a 24-hour test of the equipment on a link back to Herefordshire. He was due to fly out after that test, but during those 24 hours he was kidnapped.
Had those responsible at BT taken the installation more seriously, had they bothered to understand the situation on the ground, had they wished to ensure that he could do the work in the time scale that they believed was possible, he would not have been kidnapped. That is of no consequence to the others who were kidnapped, but in the case of my constituent it meant his life.
After seeking various meetings with BT, my constituents, who were already in touch with me, asked me to get involved. After some delays, I eventually spoke to Mr. John Steele, British Telecom's group personnel director. Peter's daughter, Sarah, and I attended a meeting with him on 13 April this year. I asked him some questions and expected some answers, as did Peter Kennedy's daughter. We asked him how many guards Peter had. He did not know. We asked him whether Peter had been told of the risks. He did not know. We asked him where Peter was staying in Chechnya. He did not know. We asked him why he had left Granger to make the arrangements. He told me that that company's staff had been in and out so often that he thought that it knew the risks.
British Telecom felt that if the kidnappers knew that BT was involved, a possible ransom would be increased. However, we have discovered that when Peter Kennedy went to Chechnya he carried with him British Telecom equipment. He was asked to sign and have signed by the local people a handover document stating that he had completed the work. The antenna that he carried had a BT symbol on it.
As the delays continued while Peter was out there, alarm bells began to ring at Madley in Herefordshire. One e-mail from a member of staff whom Peter knew well said:
The answers to these questions never came out fully at the recent inquest, and they will not bring back those who have died. However, the families should not have to resort to legal action against Granger or BT to find out what happened. I believe that Parliament should answer their questions for them.
I have always believed that the Government acted honourably in this incident. They knew the risks, and they passed them on to companies. Granger, and BT nationally, also knew the risks, but failed to pass them on. I hope that the law will be strengthened to ensure that companies have a duty of care to ensure that Foreign Office advice is passed on in the future.
Why did BT nationally fail to lay on adequate security for one of its own? Why, corporately, did it hide in London, allowing a local satellite station to take control? In a letter to me, John Steele from BT lists some of the ways in which he felt BT had supported the family. The list includes lending a mobile phone, providing a chauffeur to bring the family to London and attending Peter's funeral. BT also continued to pay Peter £350 a day until he was murdered.
In The Sunday Times yesterday, more came out about this tragic incident. The account of Raul, aged 36, who was held with the three Britons and the New Zealander, was published. In it, he tells of how the foreigners were beaten about the heads with rifle butts. Although it was dark, he said that he believed that they were already dead when they were decapitated. The video that he was shown the following day showed several figures cutting off the heads of the hostages. Afterwards, two of them were lying still; two had convulsions. Nothing can bring back those men, but we must learn from what happened.
Hereford is well known as the home of the Special Air Service regiment, and we have more than our fair share of ex-members of that regiment working in international security. We are proud of that, and we must say that at no time did Peter Kennedy ever work for the SAS. None of those involved worked for the SAS or were spies--that suggestion, made privately, and in Russia, is wrong.
That Miss Julie Kirkbride be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Laurence Robertson be added to the Committee.
That Dr. Vincent Cable be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Edward Davey be added to the Committee.--[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
22 Nov 1999 : Column 443
22 Nov 1999 : Column 445
9.58 pm
"communicated with those responsible for taking the hostages".
He also said:
"Granger Telecom took the lead on the ground"--[Official Report, 9 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 322-4.]--
during the negotiations, but my constituent, Mr. Peter Kennedy, was not working for Granger Telecom, as I believed during that debate. He was working as a self-employed sub-contractor for one of Britain's largest companies, British Telecom. It is BT's involvement in this tragic affair that I wish to highlight.
"They say it is safe enough, but very boring".
Another e-mail that was recovered from Peter Kennedy's computer after he died and had been sent for him to read when he returned said:
"just a bit of info as to what was going on whilst you were sunning yourself in Grozny."
I have spoken to senior managers and ex-managers at Madley, who tell me privately that BT nationally never told them about the risks that Kennedy was taking. We must ensure that if our major companies send their staff--employed directly or indirectly--overseas, they fulfil their responsibility to pass on Foreign Office advice, particularly if people are being sent to a dangerous place. If they then choose to go, fair enough, but Peter Kennedy's ex-colleagues, his widow, his daughter and I firmly believe that he never understood the dangers, in which case it was wrong for him to go.
"To all concerned, whilst people are casually passing the onus of this problem around, please have a thought for the person who is, at this moment, in Chechnya trying to get this system up and running for BT."
I believe that those responsible at BT acted disgracefully. They did not give the local staff in Herefordshire or their one-time employee Peter Kennedy any idea of the dangers that he faced. When the kidnapping happened, it was BT, not Granger, as the Government said, which led the negotiations. I was told that Granger could not cope and Control Risks conducted negotiations via Granger. Those at BT claimed to me in a meeting that they could not remember ransoms, but they were in regular negotiations. The Foreign Office and the Government must have known about that. The Foreign Office must have kept an eye on what Control Risks, Granger and BT were offering. Was a ransom on offer? What was said in the telephone conversations with the men before they were killed? Was a rescue planned?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |