Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Campbell of Alloway (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 28 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Civil Aviation Bill.


Civil Aviation Bill

My Lords, I ask the indulgence of the House, not having spoken before on this amendment, which only came to my notice on the morning of Report stage when I could not attend. I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights but, of course, speak only for myself. Extraordinary rendition is a term of art not known to public international law, as the purpose is interrogation under torture. This amendment does not foreclose upon this practice as such in our domestic law, which as yet recognises the defence of lawful authority, justification or excuse to a charge of torture. One hopes that it may soon be amended, albeit that this process is proscribed by the United Nations Convention against Torture, to which as yet the Government have declined to accept the right of individual petition. The narrative of events as already spoken to in Committee and on Report, which is not for me to report or rehearse, has not been accepted by the DCA, the MoD, the Home Office or any other department of state as far as I am aware. So is it not a reasonable assumption that, in the wake of 9/11, this arrangement for extraordinary rendition was made between President Bush and the right honourable gentleman, our own Prime Minister, and that it was implemented by the intelligence services under the shield of joint national security? If not, how else is it that no department of state accepts cognisance of what we know is going on? Has not the time come to shift that shield, without disclosing sources, and to provide, as is proposed by this amendment or in some similar amendment, that the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament? It is now common ground, having read Hansard, that under the Chicago Convention, control of the aircraft is exercised by the Civil Aviation Authority on clearance for landing and take-off, and when the aircraft is grounded, it is subject to the provisions of the Chicago Convention. It is assumed that the Civil Aviation Authority, under the practice spoken to in Committee and on Report, is given directions. Who gives those directions? How is the clearance arranged? Who knows about what is going on? Those are questions that the Minister is in no position to answer. But we as ordinary people are entitled to ask them. If airports are cleared for this purpose, who gives the instructions? Who is it who knows? If no department of state accepts cognisance, there is no control but Parliament. It is assumed that under this amendment those instructions would be given by the Secretary of State, that passenger lists would be checked, and that the ultimate destination and the purpose of the flight would be verified. But nothing like that appears to happen today. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has this amendment and is working on extraordinary rendition. As yet, however, it has received no evidence or any information to dispel my anxiety. I cannot speak for anyone else. However, I can say that there is much more work to be done and it shall be done. The report, which may not be presented at the moment, will be available before the Bill, when returned to another place, receives attention. It will be for another place to consider whether this amendment qualifies as a connected purpose related to the control of the Civil Aviation Authority under the Chicago Convention. That is the matter which I would have touched upon the other day but I got it wrong. In conclusion, perhaps I may suggest in these exceptional circumstances that we borrow the concept that,"““magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom””," and that the Minister, having recorded his objection, as inevitably he will do when the Question is put tonight, by concession allows the ““Contents”” to have it. That has happened once in my experience; I need not go into the details. I ask that to enable the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to be considered in one of the Houses of Parliament, having regard in particular to the provisions of Clause 4(c) of the amendment. I know that that is a tall request but I ask it with humility and sincerity.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c712-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Aviation Armed conflict Construction Buildings Aircraft Airports Air routes Health Fees and charges Liability Insolvency Insulation Planning Noise Night flying Torture Rendition
Legislation
Civil Aviation Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk