Police and Justice Bill

moved Amendment No. 91A: After Clause 10, insert the following new clause- ““POWER TO SEARCH AIRCRAFT INVOLVED IN ACTS OF RENDITION (1) If the Secretary of State is aware of intelligence that any aircraft entering British airspace is being, or has been or may be involved in an act of unlawful rendition, he may require that aircraft to land at a designated suitable airport. (2) If any plane is required to land in accordance with subsection (1) a responsible person shall as soon as practicable- (a) enter the aircraft; or (b) arrange for a police constable to enter the aircraft. (3) If the Secretary of State or other responsible person is aware of intelligence that an aircraft using airport facilities in the United Kingdom is being, has been or may be involved in an act of unlawful rendition then a responsible person may make arrangements to- (a) enter the aircraft; or (b) arrange for a police constable to enter the aircraft. (4) A person who enters an aircraft under subsection (2) or (3) shall endeavour to ascertain- (a) whether the aircraft is being, has been or may be used for an act of unlawful rendition; (b) whether a criminal offence has been committed; (c) whether allowing the aircraft to continue could place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights; and for these purposes the person may search the aircraft. (5) In order to comply with a power under subsection (4) any item may be removed from the aircraft. (6) For the purposes of this section- ““an act of unlawful rendition”” is an act involving the transportation of a person to a territory where international human rights standards, in particular protections against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, are not observed, such transportation not being in accordance with formal lawful extradition or deportation procedures; ““a responsible person”” means- (a) the chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales; (b) the chief constable of a police force maintained under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77); (c) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”” The noble Baroness said: This amendment has also had a previous incarnation earlier this year in the context of the Civil Aviation Bill. Some people thought that this was possibly not the most appropriate vehicle for it. There can be no doubt that the Police and Justice Bill is an entirely appropriate vehicle, or that this amendment will fit well within it. It is a simple amendment, seeking to give appropriate powers to the police to search any aircraft at any airfield if there is suspicion that the aircraft may be, or had been, involved in the odious practice of extraordinary rendition. It seeks to ensure that the UK could not in the future be in any way implicated in the practice of extraordinary or unlawful rendition, and would reassure the public that the UK will not condone any aspect of unlawful rendition. Given the volume of news comments and the resulting unease about suspected UK involvement, by adopting this amendment the Government could provide immediate public confidence. Clause 10 addresses the perceived gaps in existing legislation, in particular the existing restrictions on police powers to stop and search staff, visitors and members of the public at airports to deter theft and smuggling. The Bill also seeks to extend the power to question anyone in or near restricted zones of an airport. The emphasis in the Police and Justice Bill seems to be on confronting criminal activity. It does not enable the police to investigate any suspected breaches of international law governing human rights. This is a serious gap, and one which would be addressed by the amendment we are discussing. Since the amendment was first moved in December last year—it was moved again in March this year—there has been much more evidence of the practice of rendition and strong circumstantial evidence that the UK has, wittingly or unwittingly, been complicit in the use of its airfield facilities and airspace. I refer to the recent report of an exhaustive inquiry by the Swiss senator, Dick Marty, the report by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, and the most recent Amnesty International reports on extraordinary rendition. To summarise this new evidence, I cite the case of Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna, in which the UK’s involvement in their detention in the Gambia and subsequent rendition to Guantanamo Bay was confirmed by a series of revelations in the course of a judicial review by the High Court of England and Wales. It appears that the UK security services provided detailed information to the Gambian Government and thence to the CIA, enabling the detention, torture and rendition of those two British citizens. Amnesty International, in its report Partners in Crime, Europe’s role in US rendition, concluded that the UK was not only instrumental in the detention of those men, but complicit in their rendition and resulting torture. Another case concerns Binyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian, who was given leave to remain in the UK, and was seized by the Pakistan authorities and interrogated in Pakistan by both American and British officials—and then transferred to Morocco by the Americans, where he was detained and tortured over an 18-month period. From Morocco, he was rendered by the Americans to Afghanistan for five months, where he was again tortured, and finally transferred to Guantanamo Bay. The only disclosed evidence against Mr Mohammed is statements extracted under torture. Mr Mohammed states that at every stage of his incarceration the British were implicit in interrogation, collusion with the Moroccan authorities and in providing detailed information. Those cases stand apart from the large amount of evidence of CIA or CIA-leased aeroplanes using UK airfield facilities over a prolonged period. Over 200 identified CIA flights have passed through the UK over the past five years, giving rise to reasonable suspicion that at least some of those flights were involved in extraordinary rendition. Indeed, on 17 March this year, the Transport Secretary of that time revealed that six US planes alleged to be involved in extraordinary rendition had used UK airports 73 times since 2001. Mr Terry Davis remarked in his report that: "““European skies appear to be excessively open … very few countries seem to have adopted an adequate and effective way to monitor who and what is transiting their airports and airspace … existing procedures do not provide adequate safeguards against abuse””." Given the UK’s obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture and other international instruments that bind human rights provisions, it would appear that the Government are obliged to look into those allegations and to refute them with evidence. However, this amendment does not ask for investigations of the past or for recriminations on any cases, but simply seeks to set up proper arrangements to ensure that there is no further complicity and, therefore, to provide public confidence that we should be seen to be conforming with our international obligations and international law. I beg to move.