---

Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for re-introducing this topic, which occupied us for a short time in Committee in somewhat frenetic circumstances, as I think the House will recognise. My department was certainly living from hand to mouth when it came to getting information, which inevitably had to come from a number of sources and which in some respects was very difficult to obtain. We all know the reasons for that; there were many contentions, but very little that could be substantiated. So there was difficulty in replying in Committee, but we have moved on from that, and I want to respond as best I can to the points that have been made today. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Dykes and Lord Hylton, about these issues—a concern that was most graphically expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, when she referred to our repugnance for any activities involving torture in which we might inadvertently have been complicit. But this is not Foreign Office Question Time, so I am not here to answer Foreign Office policy in quite those terms. My task is to say whether this legislation, or an amendment to it, would improve the situation. In saying that, I resile in no way from the remarks I made in Committee—far from it. I share with all noble Lords the very great concern that I think the whole country feels about this issue. The problem with the clause is that this legislation is concerned with aviation matters. Dealing with a clause which concerns how to deal with extraordinary rendition, or how we would dissuade allies and friendly powers, if they were engaged in such a thing, to desist, is not my business today. My business is whether this amendment would deal with the issue that has been identified, which is of concern to us all, and whether it applies to this legislation. My contention is that, of course, there are aspects of work which the Government and the Department for Transport, which is the department on whose behalf I am replying today, can do with regard to aviation matters in order to allay some of the concerns expressed today. I doubt whether I will be able to allay every concern. I recognise that this issue will be raised in other fora with members of the Government in far more responsible and elevated positions than I. who will be able to reply on those general issues. But, on this Bill, the proposed new clause tabled by the noble Baroness will not work. Let me explain why. The reason why no action was taken against aircraft involved in unlawful renditions using UK facilities on the ground or travelling through our airspace is simply because there was no credible evidence that that had occurred. We did not have evidence which gave us cause to take action. That has been made clear in Ministerial Statements and PQ Answers. Since this Government came to power, they have authorised the use of UK facilities for two prisoner transfers to the United States where the prisoners were subsequently tried, and they were declined with regard to two other transfers where we did not think that the evidence stood up. It has been widely reported that specific US-registered aircraft, allegedly linked to the CIA, have used UK facilities for renditions. But we have no compelling evidence to suggest that those aircraft have been linked to unlawful activity while in or overflying the United Kingdom. The Chicago convention is clear on this. We certainly have the right to investigate an aircraft, but, of course, we have to have good grounds for doing so. If credible intelligence of serious illegal activity comes to light regarding an aircraft in flight, the Government can certainly require the aircraft to land. Article 3 bis of the Chicago convention allows states to require aircraft to land if there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the aircraft is being used for any purpose that is inconsistent with the aims of the convention. If the aircraft is on the ground the control authorities—police, Customs and immigration—have a variety of powers to enter, take evidence and make arrests. So, under the convention, we have the powers. The question addressed to us is why those powers were not exercised if there had been credible evidence that this was going on. We had no such evidence, which is why action was not taken. I am emphasising that subsection (1) of the proposed clause is unnecessary, because what subsection (1) would empower us to do, we already have the rights and powers to do. Moreover, it will be recognised that from the Prime Minister and down through all ranks of government it is clear that the Government are determined to act if evidence of such activity should ever arise. The wider issue of the transportation by air of persons deprived of their liberty—