| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.13 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) for raising this matter and for the way in which he raised it. He referred to the dreadful practice of hostage taking in Chechnya, and particularly to the tragic incident involving his constituent. Wider issues and questions of international affairs have emerged following this case, and that is what these Adjournment debates should be about. The hon. Gentleman has raised the case in an exemplary manner.
The timing of the debate is poignant, as it is almost a year since the deaths in Chechnya of the three British citizens and the New Zealander who were kidnapped in
Grozny in early October 1998 and whose remains were found on 8 December. I extend my condolences to the bereaved families. Our admiration goes out to them for their courage and fortitude over the past year.
As the House is well aware from our earlier debate and from the international news, the security situation in Chechnya was highly precarious at the time of the murders. It has deteriorated sharply since August, when Islamic militants from Chechnya invaded the neighbouring Russian republic of Dagestan. The Russians responded with air, artillery and ground attacks in Chechnya, which is now a combat zone. The Government are deeply concerned about the human suffering caused by the operations. There is little reliable information, but we believe that about 200,000 Chechens have fled to other regions, with many more displaced within Chechnya.
I want to use this opportunity to bring the House up to date on our efforts to get to the truth about what happened to the four murdered men. Despite the deteriorating security situation in Chechnya, we remain determined to press for those responsible for their murders to be brought to justice. Kidnapping is a crime; murder is a crime. We have repeatedly emphasised to both the Russian and the Chechen authorities their responsibility for investigating the kidnap and murder of the men and for bringing their murderers to justice. The Metropolitan police and the British embassy in Moscow have done everything in their power to establish what happened, but ultimately we have to rely on the Russian and Chechen authorities to enforce the law.
Both the Russian and the Chechen authorities have opened investigations into the kidnaps and murders. We are in close touch with the Russian authorities and have encouraged them to share information on the progress of their investigations, but the fact remains that they did not exert control in Chechnya at the time of the kidnapping, and the current hostilities mean that Russia has no formal contact with the Chechen authorities.
The Chechen authorities have claimed to be making progress in their investigations. They informed us in March that they had resolved the kidnapping part of the case and that four Chechens had been charged. They said that the murder investigation continued. Despite all our efforts, we have not been able to obtain any further information from the Chechen authorities, and there does not appear to have been a trial. As the security situation worsens, the prospect of getting to the truth must be increasingly remote. A face-to-face meeting with the Chechen authorities is now all but impossible; nor can we rely on local media reports.
We will continue our efforts; the matter will not rest unresolved. We want more headway to be made, but any further progress in the investigations by the Russian and Chechen authorities at this time is highly unlikely. We will continue to keep the case open and to press for information.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the subject of BT's involvement in this tragic affair, but I must correct any mistaken suggestion that the Government did not recognise BT's involvement. From the time when the Department was informed of the kidnap, it was recognised that Mr. Kennedy was subcontracted to BT.
The division of responsibilities and tasks between Granger and BT is a matter for them, but our understanding is that Granger did indeed take the lead, as
my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), said in his reply to the hon. Gentleman's private notice question on 9 December 1998. It was Granger's contract and it had the high-level contacts at Chechen Telecom and in the Government.
If the Government's public comments at the time emphasised Granger's role, there was a good tactical reason. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Government's overriding concern at such times is to safeguard the lives of the hostages, and it is important to minimise the risk of a ransom demand and to avoid raising their value in the eyes of the hostage takers.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a ransom was on offer in negotiations between Granger and the kidnappers. That is an important point. The House is well aware of the policy of successive Governments. We do not pay ransoms and we do not condone the payment of ransoms, which ultimately only encourages further kidnaps and puts more lives at risk. Families and companies do not always follow Government policy; that is their right, but we do not condone it.
In the case of Mr. Kennedy and his colleagues, we were aware that Granger had discussed a ransom with the hostage takers. We actively discouraged that and made it clear that the Government could not be associated in any way with the payment of a ransom. Both companies were fully aware of Government policy and that we disapproved of paying a ransom.
The inquest at the Westminster coroner's court on 3 November into the death of the four men reached a verdict of unlawful killing. At the inquest, the Metropolitan police gave their assessment of the available evidence. They have concluded that there is no evidence to confirm or rebut any of the various explanations given for the deaths.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many rumours and theories have circulated about the reasons for and circumstances of the men's murder. Some of those rumours and theories have surfaced in the press, and my predecessor reported to the House on 25 March our best assessment at the time. We have been careful to pass on to the families any report that might shed light on why their relatives were killed, but I must emphasise that we have no evidence. The best that we can do is to speculate on the basis of rumour and report--but, I might add, we must be circumspect in doing so out of respect for the families' feelings. It should not come as a surprise to the House that there is so little reliable information, given the nature of Chechnya, but I wish to stress that every report and every rumour relating to the murdered men was, is and will be closely examined by officials here and in the region.
The security situation, dangerous at the time, has worsened considerably since that dreadful crime. I cannot stress enough the importance of companies and individuals heeding the FCO's travel advice. The advice for the Russian Federation has warned clearly and unambiguously against travel to Chechnya since 1994. My predecessor quoted the travel advice in full during a previous debate on the subject on 25 March and I shall repeat it. It reads:
I wish to draw particular attention to the last part of the advice about the ability of the FCO and the British embassy in Moscow to render assistance being severely limited. Travellers and their employers should not overestimate the ability of the FCO to help them if they get into trouble in a place such as Chechnya. British officials do not and should not travel to Chechnya--rightly, in view of the security situation. In view of our severely limited ability to render assistance, it is all the more important to heed our clear travel advice against travelling to Chechnya.
The advice applies to all who may wish to visit Chechnya, whatever their motive. Travel advice is aimed not just at tourists, but applies equally to business travellers, journalists, humanitarian aid workers and others. The deaths of the men whom we are discussing tonight should act as a tragic and sobering warning. Unfortunately, individual travellers and their employers, and other organisations, continue in some cases to ignore FCO warnings against travelling to certain dangerous parts of the world and, in doing so, put themselves at risk.
The hon. Gentleman raises many questions for BT to answer. He believes that BT never told Mr. Kennedy of the risks. That is clearly an issue for BT. For my part, I can only repeat that the FCO travel advice was clear and unambiguous and that both companies were aware of it.
What lessons can we learn from that tragic event? The hon. Gentleman suggests that companies should be obliged to warn their staff of the security situation in a country before they are posted there. I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made
a similar proposal in the House on 25 March. I fully agree that employers have a moral responsibility to provide such information to their staff, including showing them the FCO travel advice. That is part of employers' duty of care towards their staff. It is not for us to become directly involved in the personnel operations of private companies, but we do expect UK employers to take our advice into account before posting their staff overseas. The individual also bears a responsibility to find out about the security situation in a country to which he or she is being posted.
The FCO takes every possible action to ensure that our travel advice is seen by companies and individuals. The advice is disseminated widely--it is circulated to the travel industry and is even accessible on BBC 2 Ceefax. It is also accessible worldwide on the internet and is available at any of our posts overseas. Our diplomatic missions overseas circulate all appropriate advice to resident Britons who are registered with them. It is up to each individual company to ensure that its employees are properly informed and that our advice is taken seriously.
As we all know, Chechnya is currently a dangerous place where the safety of British nationals cannot be guaranteed. British citizens should simply not go there. I hope that that advice will be heeded by both individuals and companies.
The House owes the hon. Gentleman a debt for the way in which he has taken the particularly tragic case of one of his constituents and highlighted how there may be flaws in structure and approach, leaving some individuals at great risk. Questions have been asked in this debate that will be for other people to answer, and I suspect that this debate will not mark the end of the case. The FCO will do what we can to examine all the available evidence and to discover what happened. We will continue to demand answers.
Question put and agreed to.
"We strongly advise against travel to the Chechen Republic because of the unstable security situation. Kidnapping for financial gain is common. Westerners are particularly vulnerable. Those who travel to Chechnya despite this advice are taking severe risks, and must accept that the ability of the FCO and British Embassy in Moscow to render assistance is severely limited".
22 Nov 1999 : Column 451
That is the current advice. FCO officials brought that advice to the attention of Granger Telecom in both July and August 1998. Granger has told us it shared that advice with its staff. BT has also told us that it was aware of the FCO travel advice and of the dangers of visiting Chechnya.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |