HL Deb 06 June 2000 vol 613 cc1039-40

2.35 p.m.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What has been the outcome of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' review of the use of Stansted airport as the Government's preferred airport for dealing with hijacks, following the major hijack incident involving an Ariana Boeing 727 in February.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)

My Lords, as noted in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on 15th February, all UK airports must be capable of handling hijacked aircraft. Policy on handling of hijacks is reviewed as a matter of course after an incident such as that at Stansted. The review is well under way but, for security reasons, the results will not be made public.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, I hope that the review will take account of the fact that when Stansted first became the preferred location for dealing with hijacked aircraft there were fewer than 250,000 passengers a year using it. Is the Minister aware that the figure is now close on 10 million a year and that statistics published over the weekend demonstrate that, with an increase of 37.5 per cent, Stansted has the second biggest increase in throughput of passengers in the world? Is it not time to choose an airport where hijacks would cause far less disruption, fewer diversions and fewer cancelled flights? These incidents are an enormous inconvenience of the travelling public.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of the increase in traffic at Stansted, an airport which has advantages over other London airports because it is easier to reduce disruption to air traffic and to isolate aircraft more effectively. The United Kingdom has a national aviation security programme which recommends that all airport managers should produce and develop contingency plans for an aircraft hijack in consultation with local police authorities.

Lord Clinton-Davis

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is absolute nonsense for the Government to declare that a particular airfield, aerodrome or airport is to be used for hijacked aircraft? Would not terrorists regard that information as most useful? Should not the Government continue to utilise the airports which are most convenient for planes which are hijacked rather than designate a specific airport?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I am grateful again for that intervention. I stress that the Government have not singled out any one particular airport. All airports are required to have in place security programmes as recommended through our national aviation security plans.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, the Minister referred to requirements placed on all airport managers. Do they include military airports? On the assumption that one of the priorities in dealing with a hijack is to minimise inconvenience to the public, the use of a military airfield to receive a hijacked aircraft would have many advantages over a civil airfield.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, the primary consideration clearly is to ensure the safety of the people on the aircraft and on the ground. It might not be conducive to that if hijackers feared they were flying into a military airfield. Our plans cover commercial airports.

Viscount Waverley

My Lords, having access to an understanding on how to influence the Taliban is a principal challenge. What is being done in that regard? And who were we dealing with in matters relating to the hijack?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston

My Lords, I sit beside my noble and learned colleague Lord Williams of Mostyn who no doubt would confirm that the issues in this case are now sub judice.