---

Civil Aviation Bill

We are, my Lords, if we have the intelligence. We have never denied that aeroplanes from the United States have flown in and out of the UK, some of them using RAF bases. That is well known and entirely normal. If it were suspected that illegalities were being carried out on such aircraft—that would apply to any state, not any particular state—we would need very serious and convincing evidence to force an aircraft down. That is a highly unlikely eventuality, given the nature of the evidence that would be necessary. If the House will allow me to move on, I have a slightly more positive stance to take than the one I have had to adopt up to now. My task is to try to convince the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, not to press her amendment. The Government are seriously exercised about these issues. We have made it clear to the US authorities in recent months that we expect them to seek permission to render detainees via UK territory and air space, and that includes overseas territories. Secondly, we will grant permission only if we are satisfied that the rendition would accord with UK law and our international obligations. Thirdly, we have made it clear to the United States how we understand the UK’s obligations under the UN convention against torture and the European Convention on Human Rights. We in turn are clear that the US would not render a detainee through UK territory or air space, including our overseas territories, without our permission. My conclusion is this: of course I recognise the widespread concern about this issue—that has been evidenced in the debate. But the new clause would not serve a practical purpose. We have the powers to deal with aircraft if we need to. We can deal with aircraft on the ground if we suspect that a crime has been committed and is against national law. Any changes to international law that may be identified as desirable are best debated and resolved through international fora, not through UK law. Of course I share the anxieties that have been expressed this evening. I hope the House will recognise that we have been forthright about this matter. We are satisfied that we have the powers to deal with it. We have also made it clear, in the one case in which we have expressed anxiety—namely, the allegations that the United States has been involved in this activity—just where we stand under our obligations under international law. If the United States proposed to use British air space or British facilities of any kind, it would have to seek our permission and we would seek reassurance that it was acting in accordance with international law.