HC Deb 23 March 1972 vol 833 cc1847-58

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

The case which I wish to raise concerns the security of Heathrow Airport. For many years in the House I have raised matter son the Adjournment, and this is one of the most potentially serious matters of which I have ever spoken. I will sit down after 12 minutes to give my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim), who has taken a particular interest in this incident, an opportunity to address the House.

The security of airports greatly concerns us all. We all know of the outrages that have occurred involving the use of explosives and the hijacking in various parts of the world from which international incidents have resulted. The security of the airport is a matter of most serious concern to the Government, the public, passengers in aircraft and, above all, pilots and cabin staff. For this reason one must consider any incident of the kind I shall describe as being of the utmost seriousness.

Measures can be taken on aircraft to prevent hijacking, but within the airport itself measures can be taken by a well-trained staff to stop hijackers and saboteurs getting on to aircraft. I say "well-trained" staff because there are regulations at London Airport which, if put into operation and properly carried out, would prevent incidents of the type I shall describe. When the staff fail to adopt these measures and permit incidents to arise the House must view the matter seriously. If the staff break their own regulations, as happened in this case, there will one day be a catastrophe at London Airport, and this would be a matter for the House to discuss. I am therefore glad to raise it in the hope that this will be a warning to all concerned that it should never occur again. It is no good pretending that sabotage and hijacking could not happen at London Airport. My story shows that they could.

A constituent of mine, Mr. Richard Bryant of Cumnor, was asked to accompany a friend to Heathrow on 8th February. The arrangement was that he should drive back his friend's car which was to have some work done on it while the friend was in New York. Mr. Bryant did not drive the car to London Airport, and I want to correct the misunderstanding about that which was reported in the Press. He drove the car only after the aircraft had taken his friend away.

The check-in time for flight BA.501 on a B.O.A.C. jumbo jet to New York was 10 o'clock on the morning of 8th February. Unfortunately some documents were left behind, which meant that the car with both men in it had to return to London. B.O.A.C. was warned of their late arrival. The car returned to Heathrow and reached terminal 3 at 10.47 that morning.

There was in the car some property belonging to Mr. Bryant's friend, whose name I do not mention, not because it is not known to the Department and to the British Airports Authority but because he is still abroad and he has not had an opportunity to be interviewed, and his side of the story is not yet known. He had booked two first-class seats, one on which to place his property and keep it beside him. On arrival he was told, as was Mr. Bryant, that the passenger list for the flight was closed and he could not travel on that flight but could travel on another flight on a VC10 at 1300 hours that day. The car was all this time parked outside the entrance to terminal 3.

Mr. Bryant's friend took the view— perhaps unorthodox but some would think a not unnatural view—that B.O.A.C. was under contract to fly him to New York since he had booked two first-class seats for that purpose. He told Mr. Bryant to jump into the car and drove the wrong way up a one-way street towards gate 5 on the airfield near terminal 3. This was not a premeditated action. It was impulsive perhaps, and possibly somewhat unorthodox. He wanted to catch the aircraft if he could. He was probably as surprised as Mr. Bryant that when they reached the barrier manned by a policeman at gate 5, the barrier being in the down position, after some conversation they were allowed through on to the tarmac of the airport.

The car was a Peugeot with left-hand drive and Mr. Bryant, in speaking to the police or security officer, held out his passport and airline ticket and said he was trying to catch the aircraft and asked the officer to let him through. The police officer let him through without further argument. Neither of these men knew where the aircraft was on the airfield. They went up to one jumbo jet and found that it was not the right one. Then an official on the tarmac, I believe a man with a broom, directed them towards the correct aircraft for New York.

It sounds an amazing situation, but they eventually came to the right aircraft. There they spoke to a red-capped official who was in charge of the loading of aircraft. He was told by both men that the man travelling to New York had two ticket reservations but that owing to the fact that there were a number of people at terminal 3 the staff would not process him through and asked whether the official could help. The official spoke on a walkie-talkie and asked whether a passenger who was travelling to New York could obtain a boarding pass. Meanwhile the luggage was loaded on to the aircraft.

Eventually Mr. Bryant, who had no boarding pass, and his friend both mounted the steel staircase on to the jumbo jet. The passenger was shown into his seat and Mr. Bryant left after saying goodbye—having got on board the jumbo without any boarding pass. He did not know how to return the car back across the tarmac to terminal 3 but an obliging official came up to him, got into the car with him and then drove to a different gate—not gate 5—which was opened without challenge. There was no argument from the police officer. That was the second gate through which they had gone in the space of half an hour without any challenge at all.

Mr. Bryant is a very responsible businessman. He regarded the situation as so extraordinary that when the car was parked in the aerodrome, he took out a camera and photographed it standing parked underneath the wing of the jumbo, a position in which it might have stood if a saboteur were intending to leave it there containing a bomb. He was so amazed by the situation of no interest being taken in the movements of the car that he recorded the incident by taking six or seven photographs which are in the possession of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. It is clear evidence of what happened on that day and shows that there was the gravest possible breach of security.

Mr. Bryant reported the matter to B.O.A.C. It is not clear whether the airline took any action. It was understood that a reservation on the VC10 would not be required, and the corporation was amazed to hear that his friend had got on a B.O.A.C. jumbo jet which was departing earlier. No one seems to have been clear what was going on. Mr. Bryant went a great deal further. This was not in any sense a publicity stunt on his part. He realised the security aspect and telephoned the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, but he did not get very much change out of that. He spoke to a secretary who told him that the chairman was not available, but he was very persistent.

Mr. Bryant rang again the following morning and gave a telephone number in my constituency. Unfortunately the Cumnor exchange was misheard for Cunningham. In consequence, it is said that it was imposible to get in touch with him. He did not know there had been this misunderstanding. He was expecting to hear from the office of the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, but nothing ensued. Therefore, after a period had elapsed he informed my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, who reported the matter to me. I then referred it to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who interviewed Mr. Bryant. I think that my right hon. Friend was absolutely aghast when he heard this story and ordered an immediate investigation.

I think that the House and the public will want assurances that this kind of thing will be stopped. That is why I am raising this matter tonight.

I was not very impressed with the letter which the Chairman of the British Airports Authority wrote on this occasion. I should have welcomed much stronger language being used about the gross breach of the rules at his own airports. He merely said: Anything which keeps us on the alert is most salutary. I think he might have gone further. After all, the car, which was parked under the wing of the aircraft, as the photograph shows, might have contained a hijacker or a bomb. The matter should have been treated with far greater seriousness.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester to say what she feels about the matter, will be aware that if precautions against hijacking and sabotage at airports are not taken, pilots and cabin staff are entitled to protest, because they bear a grave responsibility. I hope that they will be satisfied with what my hon. Friend has to say tonight. I know that for security reasons he cannot give all the details of what is being done, but I hope he will assure us that if a passenger is allowed by an airline to make a late boarding he must be escorted, if in a car, by a police officer and an airline official on all occasions. The danger is that when the talk over this incident at Heathrow has subsided, things might become lax again.

I hope my hon. Friend will assure us that top security officials will organise regular inspections on these occasions and that there will be a continuing watch. Otherwise the next car to park beside a jumbo jet might contain a bomb or harbour a hijacker.

11.42 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim (Gloucester)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for allowing me a few moments of his time. The whole House will be grateful to him for urgently raising this highly disturbing matter.

When the circumstances were first brought to my attention by my hon. Friend's constituent I was frankly appalled at what appeared to be a very serious breach of security at London Airport. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is in a position, following his investigation into the matter, to confirm that the situation was as has been described so eloquently by my hon. Friend and that there are no qualifying circumstances whatsoever that can be accepted as an excuse for such a horrifying lack of security.

I should like to impress upon my hon. Friend that Mr. Bryant has reconfirmed to me that at no time did he produce a pass or a pseudo pass that could have been mistaken for a real one. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend can give a positive assurance that adequate steps will be taken by the British Airports Authority to ensure that such a thing can never happen again.

This has been a matter of very grave concern and I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate all the implications involved, not only with regard to the safety of the passengers, the pilots and the cabin crews who use London Airport—such poor security is not fair to them—but with regard to its prestige as an international airport.

I understand, too, that the Transport and General Workers' Union has recently published a survey showing that 60 per cent. of aircraft cabin crews consider that security is inadequate and should be improved. In other words, things have become sloppy all round.

I hope that my hon. Friend, the Department and the B.A.A. will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and Mr. Bryant have rendered a valuable service in bringing this matter to the public attention before and not after a tragedy has occurred.

11.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)

The House and the public will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) for bringing this important matter to our attention.

The account which my hon. Friend has given the House of this incident at Heathrow Airport on 8th February, when two men, one a passenger, were able to drive through a British Airports Authority control post on to the apron and up to a B.O.A.C. Boeing 747 which was about to depart for New York represents a clear and serious breach of security at the airport.

Responsibility for the provision of security measures at British airports to combat possible acts of violence, including hijacking and sabotage, is primarily a matter for the airport authorities and the airlines concerned. The Government are, however, in close and continuing contact with the airlines and airport authorities and are particularly concerned that effective security measures relevant to the threat to our aviation should be taken at our airports and by our airlines.

We therefore take a very grave view of the lapse in security described by my hon. Friend. I assure him and the House that this concern is shared to the full by B.A.A. and B.O.A.C. They offer no excuses and both have made the fullest inquiries into the incident, which should not have occurred if existing instructions had been followed. Both B.A.A. and B.O.A.C. have taken, or are taking, action intended to ensure that there shall be no repetition of this incident.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who is at present on an official visit to Hungary, received a detailed account of this incident for the first time on 13th March. On the same day B.A.A. and B.O.A.C. were asked for urgent reports and these were received on 15th March. On the next day my right hon. Friend had a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon and one of the men involved in the incident.

Following those reports the Minister wrote, at the beginning of this week, to the Chairmen of B.A.A. and B.O.A.C. to emphasise to both of them the serious view which we take of this matter, to draw to their attention those issues arising from the incident which give us most cause for concern and to ask both of them to keep the Government informed of the steps which are being taken to avoid a repetition of this incident. I have explained this sequence of events at the outset as I hope it serves to demonstrate the urgency and importance which we attach to this matter.

The various reports which have been made indicate a broad measure of agreement about the basic facts, which have been described to us this evening, although they differ in points of detail. For example, both the B.A.A. control post operator and the B.O.A.C. traffic dispatcher at the aircraft have said that they were shown a pass; B.O.A.C. maintains that at no time were the two men left alone at the aircraft side; and the airline has also said that only the passenger was allowed on to the aircraft.

There is, however, no doubt, and nobody denies, that there was a lapse of security. The two men had no authority to proceed on to the apron and even if, as has been suggested, they adopted an overbearing manner, they should not have been allowed through the control post, which along with other similar posts is intended to prevent unauthorised access to the airside.

The late arrival and the manner in which the two men reached the aircraft should of themselves have been grounds for suspicion. Although the traffic dispatcher checked on the position, it is arguable in the circumstances that there should have been a more rigorous check on the two men and the baggage. It must be a matter for some concern that this occurrence was not reported to a higher level within B.A.A. and B.O.A.C. so that an immediate inquiry could have been instituted.

My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that the man, Mr. Bryant, who was not the passenger attempted on two occasions without success to speak to the Chairman of the B.A.A. about this matter and even after he left his telephone number the B.A.A. failed to contact him. I have noted, as I am sure will the Chairman of the B.A.A., my hon. Friend's comments on the letter which the Chairman has sent to his constituent. I recognise, as the B.A.A. has acknowledged, that these telephone calls to the Chairman's office should have been dealt with far more effectively.

However, this particular criticism, however much it may be valid, is not strictly a matter for the Government, although I would not myself agree that the tone of the letter was such as to suggest that the B.A.A. was taking other than a most serious and responsible view of the incident. Indeed, the promptitude with which it dealt with the matter after it received a copy of the report which my hon. Friend sent to the Minister and the action which it has taken since, and which I shall go on to mention in a moment, would seem to belie such an impression.

The important thing now, on which I believe all would agree, is to learn the lessons of this incident and to ensure that it does not happen again. I shall therefore say something about the response of the B.A.A. and B.O.A.C. to the incident and I think also it might be helpful if I were to comment on our general approach to aviation security in the United Kingdom.

After it received the report on this matter, the B.A.A. issued an immediate directive to the general managers of each of its five airports emphasising that existing instructions about the admittance of persons and vehicles to airside areas must be rigidly enforced and that security guards may not use discretion in permitting unauthorised vehicles into the air-side areas. Appropriate action has been taken with regard to the staff involved. B.O.A.C. has considered the implications of this incident and has decided that its existing security instructions, which like those of the B.A.A. should have been adequate to deal with the situation, require reinforcing rather than amending. The necessary action has now been taken to advise its staff.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade informed the House on 13th March in the debate on civil aviation policy guidance, our airlines and airport authorities are kept closely advised of the threat of acts of violence to their operations and of the steps which might be taken to combat these threats. There is close and continuing contact between the Government and the industry through the National Aviation Security Committee, which was set up a year ago to advise both the Government and the industry on aviation security. The committee, operating at the national level, comprises senior representatives of the Government, airlines, airport authorities and trade unions. There are also airport security committees at all the major airports in the United Kingdom. We believe that this close contact at all levels between the Government and the industry and the two-way exchange of information, both in the United Kingdom and with other States, is a major factor in meeting the threat of hijacking and other acts of violence.

However, we have to recognise that there can never be a guarantee of total security. Many steps can be taken and are being taken to contain the threat. For obvious reasons I do not want to say too much about these, but they can vary from service to service and, indeed, from flight to flight, depending on the threat. They include the searching of passengers and baggage, the guarding of aircraft and, notwithstanding the incident which has given rise to this debate, a close check on the movement of people and vehicles between the landside and airside and within the security areas at airports.

No one can give a total assurance but I hope, within the obvious constraints, that what I have said will indicate the serious view which we take of aviation security in the United Kingdom and of the steps we have taken, practical, organisational and legal, to prepare ourselves to deal with the international problem of violence against civil aviation. We have ratified the Convention for the Suppression of the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft—the hijacking convention—and hope shortly that legislation will be introduced to enable us to ratify the complementary Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation.

If I may say a final word about the incident of 8th February, it is right that this matter should have been brought out into the open and I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Abingdon and Gloucester. It is also clear that responsibility for this serious lapse in security rests with B.A.A. and B.O.A.C. However, it would be less than fair if I did not draw attention to the actions of the two gentleman involved. Apart from the notices displayed at the control gate they must have known, since one of them at least was a frequent visitor to Heathrow, that they had no right in the circumstances to be on the airside of the airport. Furthermore, and by their own admission, they deliberately misled the control post operator by telling him that they had a direct loading on to the B.O.A.C. flight.

Mr. Neave

That could not possibly excuse this most serious breach of security. It is hardly worth mentioning. The Chairman said that they were bluffing. That does not matter in the least. It may have been questionable. What is really not questionable, however, is that the system broke down so badly in this case that my hon. Friends had to apologise to the House.

Mr. Grant

Yes, and nothing that I have said should indicate that we take other than the most serious view of the matter; we completely accept that this was a total breakdown of security. My hon. Friend's constituent immediately brought it to the attention of the authorities and there has been no attempt on his part to conceal the actions that they took.

The incident, deplorable though it was, is not without its compensatory aspect since it has brought to light a serious security weakness at the airport, which steps have now been taken to eliminate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Twelve o'clock midnight.