---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on her brilliant, succinct presentation of the argument. Two things are at stake here, one of which has been well set out by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Garden: the clear commitment of the United Kingdom Government, time and again, to absolute opposition to torture. I simply remind the House of it by quoting the Prime Minister only a week or so ago. He said:"““Torture cannot be justified in any set of circumstances at all””." I think all of us would wish to echo that. It is also the case that the United Kingdom was one of the first signatories of the additional protocol to the convention on torture. There was no requirement on us to go ahead and sign that additional protocol. Not only were we among the first three to sign it, but we did so enthusiastically stating our commitment to that concept. What is at stake here—it is an important thing to be at stake—is the good faith of the United Kingdom Government. Also at stake is the role of Parliament. These matters were first raised in October 2005 by Members of Parliament, both in this House and in another place, from all parties. The Government were repeatedly questioned and repeatedly they indicated clearly that we had nothing to do with it. The Foreign Secretary, a man, I think, of blunt honesty, said he was ““completely unaware”” of such flights. The response of the Minister, Adam Ingram, to my right honourable friend suggested that there must have been, at least at the Civil Service level, considerable knowledge of such flights, and also, as my noble friend Lord Garden said, knowledge in the Armed Forces, particularly the Royal Air Force. It is inconceivable that they could not have known about these things, especially given NATS’s estimate of 200 flights taking place involving United Kingdom airports. In a situation where none of these questions received full or adequate answers from October all the way through to where we are now, there is a question of the relationship of the Government to Parliament. My colleagues have said that it is now the Government’s responsibility to say how the matter may be best raised in law. I share the view that the Bill may not be an appropriate tool, but it is the only one that we have to hand and it is a matter of such urgency and importance that it is perfectly right for the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to bring it up in this context. Will we now get fuller information? Can we be assured that further questions on the matter will be answered honestly and sincerely on the basis of the facts that the Government have now admitted to be the case? Finally, can the Minister repeat that the United Kingdom has nothing to do in any way with acceding to, associating itself with or facilitating torture under the heading of external rendition, so that we can say to those who have listened to us on the subject of human rights and the convention against torture that this country remains, as it has always been, a champion of those things and has no intention of compromising on that commitment?