The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I welcome this important debate and congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing it. He raises a number of serious issues about a matter in which I have a personal interest. As he is aware, I lost my brother in the Bali bombing and I understood that some of those involved in its planning were moved across the world in different formations, so I took an interest in this as a Back Bencher and continue to do so as a Minister.
Before going into the details of the subject, I will step back and look at what has caused a lot of questions to be raised about the style in which we deal with terrorism post-9/11. I am on record as saying that I believe the international community lost its way somewhat after 9/11. We were dealing with a new form of terrorism and extremism that we did not fully comprehend. I think that, in the desire to be seen to be doing something, the international community right across the piece ended up creating a new forum of justice that was not at all just by placing terrorists into parts of the world such as Guantanamo Bay where they could not receive the law of the land because it was not clear what the law of the land was, given the very land they were taken to. It is important that we learn the lessons of the past and ask why it was not correct that we should use procedures that had been in place over many years. Why did we feel the need to create something new about which we now look back on and say, “Actually, we did lose our way somewhat”?
I am therefore pleased that this debate has come forward. There are still questions being put. I will do my best to answer them, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that because a case is ongoing, I am limited in what I can say.
Mr Keith Simpson
I rise briefly to caution Members. This is the subject of a major ongoing investigation by the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is determined to find out who knew what and when. We have to be very careful about talking about “we” or any allegations that are made. Our Committee is following this through, with no fear or favour to anybody. The report will be published and then it will be very properly debated and questioned by the House.
Mr Ellwood
I have not gone into any detail, but my right hon. Friend makes a point that I shall develop later. The Committee has yet to produce its report and, until that happens, it would be wrong of the Government to comment. We will, of course, respond in full once the report has been published.
I want to outline Her Majesty’s Government’s position on rendition. The Government support the rule of law, and as the Prime Minister said today in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, we oppose any form of deprivation of liberty that amounts to placing a detained person outside the protection of the law, including so-called extraordinary rendition. We also recognise that we face a serious, complex and diffuse threat from terrorism, and we should not forget that. The Government have a duty to protect British citizens from that threat, both at home and abroad. Our policy remains that individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism should be brought to justice whenever possible.
We should not make the mistake of thinking that all rendition is necessarily unlawful. The right hon. Gentleman described the word, but it has perhaps been taken out of context on occasion. Rendition may, in certain circumstances, be acceptable. For example, we would support the transfer of an individual to safety, from a place where there was no apparent legal framework, or if there was some other legal basis for the transfer, such as a United Nations Security Council resolution.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that allegations of UK complicity in alleged unlawful rendition and mistreatment overseas are examined fully. In July 2010, the Prime Minister announced an inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson, to consider whether the UK was implicated in the improper treatment or rendition of detainees held by other countries. The inquiry undertook extensive preparatory work. However, following the launch of a new police investigation, the Government closed down the inquiry in January 2012 as there was no prospect of it being able to start in the foreseeable future.
Rather than wait for the police to complete their investigations, the Government agreed with the Intelligence and Security Committee of this Parliament in December 2013 that that Committee would carry out its own inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) has referred to that inquiry. It was decided that the Committee would consider the themes and issues that Sir Peter had raised in his preparatory work, take further evidence and report to the Government and to Parliament on the outcome. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree that the Government are co-operating fully with the Committee’s inquiry. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the Committee on 9 June. The Home Secretary and the agency heads have also given evidence.
I do not want to pre-judge the findings of the Intelligence and Security Committee—my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) has already pointed out the importance of avoiding that. Once the Committee has published its report and the outcome of the police investigations is known, the Government will be able to take a final view on whether it is in the interests of the country or of future policy making to hold another judge-led inquiry. I hope that answers the call of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
I turn now to the specific cases of Mr al-Saadi and Mr Belhaj. The Government have co-operated fully with the police investigation into the cases of those two individuals, and we acknowledge the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to bring charges. The CPS has stated clearly the reasons for the conclusions that it has reached. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further, as separate civil proceedings are now under way, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He looks poised to intervene, and I am happy to give way to him.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
The civil proceedings relate to only one of the families. The al-Saadi family has already settled, as I indicated in my speech. I appreciate that this matter falls more within the ambit of the Attorney General’s Department than the Minister’s, but does he accept that any review of the CPS’s decision needs to be undertaken by lawyers who are independent of the CPS? If he cannot answer that question, will he get me an answer from the Attorney General?
Mr Ellwood
As the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I think it would be better for the Attorney General to make that comment. However, I underline the point that the Crown Prosecution Service has stated clearly the reasons for the conclusions that have been reached, but I will invite the Attorney General to write to the right hon. Gentleman with clarity on the second case.
I now turn to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s specific points. On US rendition flights, we have received from the US assurances, which are renewed annually, that apart from two declared incidents in 2002, the US has not held or moved any detainees through the territorial land, air or seas of the UK or our overseas territories. On Diego Garcia, the British Indian Ocean Territory continues to be a vital strategic defence asset to the UK and its allies, including the US, contributing significantly towards global security and efforts at countering regional threats such as terrorism and piracy. The Government welcome the US presence on Diego Garcia and have made it clear that we want that to continue. The Prime Minister discussed Diego Garcia’s future with President Obama on 22 April and discussions are continuing. The issue of rendition is dealt with separately through the yearly assurances that we now receive from the US Government.
On the transit through UK or overseas territories of foreign rendition flights, such requests are considered on a case-by-case basis and are granted only when the purpose of the transit complies fully with international law. Under no circumstances would we approve a rendition that was not in compliance with international law. In the unlikely event that a foreign rendition flight were to land or to pass through UK airspace unexpectedly, we would again consider the case on its merits. There is no point in speculating on hypothetical scenarios, but our actions would always be consistent with our legal obligations.
It is worth mentioning the US Senate report. We welcomed the thorough US Senate Committee investigation into the CIA’s involvement in detention and rendition. We further welcomed President Obama’s acknowledgement that such actions were contrary to US values and did not serve the country’s counter-terrorism or national security interests.
The Government are certainly co-operating fully with the Intelligence and Security Committee’s inquiry. The ISC has confirmed to the Government that it has received all but one of the relevant documents to date, but if it requires any further documents, it only needs to let the Government know.[Official Report, 11 July 2016, Vol. 613, c. 1MC.]
The UK Government do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purpose. We have made that position absolutely clear, both publicly and bilaterally with our overseas partners. It is vital that our security and intelligence services are able to work with liaison partners overseas. The reality is that they will need to work with partners who do not always share our values, but we seek to ensure that acceptable standards are adhered to by those partners when they choose to work with us and to help them to raise their own standards across the board.
In July 2010, the Government published consolidated guidance for the first time setting out the standards that our intelligence officers and service personnel must apply during the detention and interviewing of detainees overseas and in the sharing of intelligence with liaison partners. It makes it clear that we act in compliance with our domestic and international legal obligations, and our values as a nation. Ministers must be consulted in circumstances where personnel judge that there is a serious risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment taking place, and Ministers will consider all relevant factors when deciding whether an operation should proceed. The independent Intelligence Services Commissioner, a former senior judge, oversees compliance with the guidance. He reports annually to the Intelligence and Security Committee, and his role in that regard was put on a statutory footing by a direction from the Prime Minister in November 2014.
I have already touched on Guantanamo Bay. The Government support President Obama’s continued commitment to close down that detention facility, which I visited a number of years ago. When that might happen remains a matter for the US Government. The UK Government have made a significant contribution to reducing the number of detainees by taking back nine UK nationals and, exceptionally, six former UK legal residents.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for this opportunity to set out the Government’s position today, and I am certainly grateful to other hon. Members for their contributions. In conclusion, I wish to emphasise again that the actions of Ministers and Government officials are bound by their duty to comply with the law. It therefore follows that the Government oppose any means of depriving any individual of their liberty that amounts to putting them outside the protection of that law.
Question put and agreed to.