§ 2.53 p.m.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position with regard to steps to be taken in respect of the hijacking of aeroplanes.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, stringent security measures continue to be maintained at our airports and the noble Lord will know that the House will be resuming consideration of the Protection of Aircraft Bill next week. Among other things, the Bill will enable us to give effect to the Montreal Convention on acts of sabotage against civil aviation. We have already ratified the Tokyo and Hague Conventions dealing with other crimes against civil aviation, particularly hijacking.
A special Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation is to open in Rome next month where the United Kingdom/Swiss proposal and a French proposal will be on the agenda. We have now agreed with the French and the Swiss Governments that we should put forward a joint proposal which will incorporate the relevant parts of the Hague and Montreal Conventions within 1005 the Chicago Convention and thus bring them within the discipline of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We have been doing our best to get international support for the joint proposal and for the strengthening of the IcAo's powers to suspend air services to defaulting States.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether the Government are taking any steps to see that those who harbour hijackers shall not have available to them the air services which they are reducing by retaining the criminals who are carrying on their activities in that particular direction? Will the noble Lord ask of the next Convention that is held whether steps will be taken internationally to implement such measures as are decided upon?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I think the main problem here is that one can act only by international agreement. If we were to take action on our own, no doubt it would be quite easy for hijackers and States that harbour them to get away with the matter: the hijackers could find some safe resting-place. The object of our proposal is to make certain that IcAo will have the means to deal with these matters; but at the end of the day sanctions are a matter for the United Nations.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord that the provisions of the Protection of Aircraft Bill will be of little avail unless they are ratified internationally, can the noble Lord say whether any attempt has been made to get agreement, at any rate within the members of the E.E.C.?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, we have come fairly close to it, because, as I said, France and ourselves, together with Switzerland, have separate amendments to propose to the Chicago Convention: and now we have got together with them, and we are doing our best to get the widest possible acceptance in Europe and elsewhere.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, will the noble Lord take into consideration the fact that it is most important that the proposals that were put forward, for example, by Canada and America on a previous 1006 occasion should be supported by us? Are we taking any steps ourselves in order to alter the Chicago arrangement; and, if so, what are they? And shall we take further steps to stop those who harbour hijackers from having the facilities to which they are not entitled?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, the proposal that we are putting forward is designed to achieve that object. It will incorporate the first 11 Articles of the Hague Convention and the 13 Articles of the Montreal Convention, which deal with hijacking and sabotage, into the Convention. If our proposals are accepted, it will be possible for IcAo to recommend the withdrawal of rights or over-flight by airlines of defaulting States. This is covered, I think, by Article 87 of the Chicago Convention.