---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 44:"After Clause 10, insert the following new clause—" ““AIRCRAFT INVOLVED IN ACTS OF RENDITION (1)   If the Secretary of State has a reasonable suspicion that any aircraft entering British airspace is being or has been involved in acts of rendition then he shall 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 another person to enter the aircraft; in order to ascertain whether the aircraft is being or has been used for rendition and whether any criminal offence has been committed or whether allowing the aircraft to continue could place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights. (3)   In order to comply with a duty under subsection (2) any person or item may be removed from the aircraft. (4)   The powers in this section shall be exercisable notwithstanding any provision of the Chicago Convention. (5)   For the purposes of this section— ““acts of rendition”” are acts 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, for the purposes of interrogation and where formal lawful extradition or deportation procedures have not been observed; ““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; (d)   one of the Commissioners of Revenue and Customs; ““The Chicago Convention”” means the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed at Chicago on 7th December 1944.”” The noble Baroness said: There is no suggestion on my part—or, indeed, on the part of anyone else—that there is any complicity by the UK Government in the practice known as ““extraordinary rendition””, but the amendment provides a mechanism to ensure that UK aerodromes are not and cannot be used to further any procedures involving the transfer of individuals to a detention centre—secret or regular, in or outside the United States of America—to be interrogated using torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. As we all know, there has been a great deal of publicity about the US role in extraordinary rendition and the facts of these procedures are still being established. However, it is known that rendition does occur and does involve the seizing of individuals from one country, without any legal proceedings, and their unwilling transfer to another country where it is likely—and some say probable—that they will be tortured or otherwise ill treated in order to obtain information to be used in the war against terrorism. Here is not the place to go over the arguments about the essential illegality under international law of these procedures, nor on the questionable value of any information gathered. The concern is to ensure that there are viable means of checking that the UK is not involved in these illegal measures and, in so doing, ensure a degree of accountability on compliance with international legal obligations. The only point that has to be made again and again is that the obligation to avoid any form of torture or ill treatment, and any complicity or actions that might result in torture, are non-derogable norms. To emphasise that point, perhaps I may quote a single sentence from the historic judgment in the Law Lords this morning, which states:"““The prohibition [against torture] has now become one of the most fundamental standards of the international community””." If the Government have knowingly allowed foreign aircraft involved in extraordinary rendition to fly within UK airspace and/or land or refuel on UK territory, this would amount to a criminal offence of aiding, abetting and/or being an accessory before or after the fact of torture and, of course, a violation of the UK Government’s legal obligations. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred in his answer to a debate on the UK’s obligations under the UN torture convention to the Chicago convention, which was agreed in 1944. This allows refuelling stops without any requirement for the host country to inquire about the purpose of such flights and thus the Lord Chancellor could not give any assurance as to what was currently happening with regard to US/CIA flights and could not take the matter any further. However, the Convention on International Civil Aviation—the Chicago convention—applies to civil aircraft only and not to state aircraft. State aircraft are defined as,"““aircraft used in military, customs and police services””." I suggest that aircraft allegedly involved in extraordinary rendition would fall within that definition and thus not be governed by the Chicago Convention. Furthermore, Article 4 of the convention obliges each contracting state to avoid using civil aviation for any purpose inconsistent with the overall aims of the convention, which are to promote safe and orderly aviation and co-operation between nations. Article 16 allows the appropriate authorities to search aircraft on landing or departure, and Article 89 states that there are other rules enabling governments to verify the nature, purpose and destination of flights. For example, Article 5 of the consolidated air Services agreement between the UK and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States gives the UK the power to revoke, suspend, limit or impose conditions on airlines used for civil flights if the airline is in breach of UK law. The Civil Aviation Act 1982, the Transport Act 2000, and the Air Navigation Order 2005 give the Secretary of State for Transport the power to intervene in the authorisation of landing rights if it is a matter of public interest, in the interests of national security, in connection with any matter that appears to affect the relations of the UK with other countries, or in order to discharge or facilitate the carrying out of an obligation binding on the UK by virtue of it being party to an international agreement. The Transport Act 2000 also obliges the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out its functions,"““in the manner best calculated to take account of””," among other considerations, any UK international obligations. These examples are by no mean exhaustive but I cite them in order to demonstrate that not only do the Government have the opportunity to investigate any flights that might be involved in extraordinary renditions, but they can prevent such flights. Contrary to the remarks made by the Lord Chancellor, the Transport Minister not only can but indeed must prohibit aircraft involved in extraordinary rendition operations from overflying or landing in the UK. Finally, if the UK Government decide that such aircraft do not fall into the category of civil aircraft but state aircraft, and it is consequently agreed that such operations might fall within the sphere of diplomatic immunity, it must be said that diplomatic immunity does not either allow or disregard criminal actions that extraordinary rendition flights most certainly appear to be. The amendment is a preliminary effort to examine the Government’s opportunities and constraints in combating the practice of extraordinary renditions; and to provide a simple, effective and convenient mechanism for intervention in operations contrary to international norms that uphold human rights. I beg to move.