Police and Justice Bill

moved Amendment No. 3: After Clause 13, insert the following new clause- ““POWER TO SEARCH AEROPLANES (1) If the Secretary of State is aware of intelligence that any aircraft entering British airspace is being, has been or may be involved in an act of unlawful rendition then he may require that aircraft to land at a designated suitable airport and inform a responsible person that he has done so. (2) If any plane is required to land in accordance with subsection (1) a responsible person shall as soon as practicable make arrangements to- (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 shall as soon as practicable 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) above 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 may search the aircraft. (5) In order to comply with a power under subsection (4)(a) any item may be removed from the aircraft. (6) The powers in this section are exercisable only in circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to obtain a warrant of entry in accordance with section 8 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60). (7) 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 routinely 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: My Lords, following two very helpful meetings with the Minister and her officials, I and my colleagues have nevertheless decided to move this amendment once again. I shall not detain your Lordships for long but shall clarify very briefly why we have taken this decision. The Government have told us that adequate laws already exist to deal with any possible case of extraordinary rendition. However, careful scrutiny of Sections 1, 8 and 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and Sections 2, 33, 34 and 163 of the Customs and Excise Management Act, although wide, do not cover the illegal detention and transfer of persons to places where torture is likely to occur. Existing domestic legislation, including that proposed in the current Police and Justice Bill, addresses smuggling, stolen goods, prohibited articles or exceptionally urgent circumstances required to save life or limb. It does not cover kidnapped individuals who may transit UK airspace or land at UK aerodromes via state or military flights. The Government may well argue that, unless there is evidence that such an individual is destined for a country or place where torture is likely, no arrestable crime has been committed. However, first, it may well be that such information is not routinely requested by the UK Government from their international partners; secondly, that information may not be forthcoming; and, thirdly, there is absolutely no way of ascertaining either of those two possibilities because of the diplomatic clearances in force. That does not inspire confidence that the practice of extraordinary rendition does not take place. It is unlikely that there will ever be evidence of this odious practice; it is, by its nature, covert. But that does not mean that it does not or cannot take place. I emphasise that the Council of Europe has categorically stated that extraordinary rendition flights have used EU space and EU airfields, including in the UK. The Vienna Commission and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have both called for special legislation to fulfil domestic and international obligations and to ensure that extraordinary rendition never happens in future. I am not sure that that argument is any longer about convincing the Government but it is in answer to other bodies that have expressed serious concerns about the UK's involvement in the practice of ER and the adequacy of existing legislation. To my mind, it is the duty of Parliament to bring about legislation that covers a possible illegality. Of course, there is crossover in legislation—that is inevitable—but where uncertainty exists, as it certainly does in this case, it is entirely legitimate to call for clarification. I finish with a statement given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer to the Constitutional Affairs Committee on 28 February this year. "““If there were a reason for us to believe that rendition through this country was taking place, and by extraordinary rendition I mean people being rendered to another country for the purposes of torturing them, we would have an obligation to investigate it and stop it in so far as it was happening in this country””." Surely, the Government would wish to abolish all uncertainty or doubt as to the use of UK facilities to enable extraordinary rendition to take place. I beg to move.