Police and Justice Bill

First, it is unusual to have to respond to a debate that was ably undertaken by my noble friend Lord Davies on 28 March. I add my voice to that of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer in saying that that debate appears to have been very full, and my noble friend did remarkably well, not being burdened as I am by the disadvantages of being a lawyer. It is absolutely clear that this issue has excited a huge amount of proper concern and attention. I reassure my noble friends, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord opposite that we agree with the sentiments on the abhorrence of torture. I shall not repeat all the arguments which my noble friend so ably outlined on 28 March, save to make three key points. First, the Government have made it clear on numerous occasions that we do not, and will not, grant permission for the United Kingdom’s airspace or territory, including our overseas territories, to be used for any unlawful rendition. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham made clear on 28 March at col. 717, we already have sufficient powers under existing legislation to take action of the sort envisaged in this amendment, if it were ever possible or necessary to do so. This amendment would therefore add nothing to existing legislation. I hear what my noble and learned friend Lord Archer says about that, but it is right to note that he, too, did not identify a gap. He clearly says, together with the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, that it would be clearer to have this provision. Thirdly, in any case, the possibility of using such powers in situations envisaged in this amendment is largely theoretical. As my noble friend Lord Davies suggested, if a jet aircraft is merely passing through United Kingdom airspace, it is unlikely to be in the UK airspace for more than, say, two hours. The suggestion that it would be possible to receive and analyse relevant intelligence, and then take action on the basis of it, is simply not realistic. These points mean that if the security and law enforcement agencies ever did receive intelligence that could give rise to the type of actions envisaged in the amendment on a time scale that would permit such action, they would already be able to undertake it. The chances of that happening are largely negligible. Of course, I agree with my noble friends and the noble Baroness in whose name the amendment stands that we must do our best to ensure that United Kingdom airspace and territory are not abused in support of unlawful rendition, but that could only be done effectively through international engagement, and long before any hypothetical flight set off. We are satisfied with our position in this context because there is no credible evidence that United Kingdom airspace or territory have been involved in unlawful rendition. We are also satisfied that at a domestic level we have all the powers we need should we ever become aware of any such flights once they are in transit. I must stress that the Committee should therefore be content with that position. I know that the Council of Europe report has caused a great deal of concern. Perhaps the important thing to remember is that it provides and contains no new evidence relating to the United Kingdom’s position. Your Lordships will have had the benefit of the Foreign Secretary’s Written Ministerial Statement of 20 January. These issues were carefully dealt with at that point. I am conscious of the time and that the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, made it clear that she does not want me to go back into the history and deal with those matters, so I do not propose to do so. However, it is important for me to reassure the House that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell was right to refer to Sections 8, 17 and 23 of PACE and Section 4 of the Public Order Act in relation to powers that, we maintain, still apply. I am not confident that this point was made, so I should say that constables throughout the United Kingdom enjoy additional powers under Part III of the Aviation Security Act 1982 in respect of non-military airports that have been designated by order of the Secretary of State. Those powers give the chief officer of police for the police area in which the airport is situated responsibility for the general policing of the airport and are without prejudice to other powers enjoyed by the police. For flights, Article 3(c) of the Chicago Convention states: "““No state aircraft of a contracting State shall fly over the territory of another State or land thereon without authorization by special agreement or otherwise, and in accordance with the terms thereof””." An authorisation to overfly for a normal, innocent purpose would not include authority to overfly for an undeclared extraordinary rendition; therefore, if the evidence justified it, any authority to overfly could be withdrawn and the aircraft could be required to land. The Government therefore believe that the police have all the powers envisaged in this amendment. Of course, whether it would ever be possible to use such powers in practice is, as has been noted, a different matter. There are various offences relevant to rendition. The unacknowledged deprivation of liberty by any person would constitute a crime, such as false imprisonment, taking away another person or kidnapping. I know how much difficulty and pain this issue has occasioned. I assure noble Lords that Her Majesty’s Government intend to look at these issues with the greatest possible care.