---

Extraordinary Rendition

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway on initiating this debate in your Lordships’ House. As your Lordships are well aware, by virtue of Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, we are obliged not to return anyone, whether resident in this country or rendered through it, to another country where there is a real risk that they will be tortured. After much confusion from the Government about the effect of international civil aviation law, the issue as to whether the Chicago Convention prevents investigations into civilian flights that are alleged to be involved in extraordinary rendition has now been settled. The Government clearly have the power to do so. The key question, therefore, is whether they are under a duty to do so. The argument centres on what facts initiate that duty. At present, the Government accept, in principle, that they would be willing to investigate where there is evidence of extraordinary rendition flights passing through the UK; but they have repeatedly denied that there is any such evidence. Until passenger lists of chartered civilian aircraft are provided to the UK authorities, nothing can be certain. However, the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, at paragraph 168, states that there is now, "““a reasonable suspicion that certain aircraft passing through the UK may have been carrying suspects where they may have faced torture … This reasonable suspicion is in our view sufficient to trigger the duty to investigate … the Government should now take active steps to ascertain more details about the flights which it is now known used UK airports””." The Government should explain to your Lordships tonight why they do not believe that such steps are necessary. Regardless of whether the Joint Committee on Human Rights is correct, the Government’s continued resistance to carrying out investigations risks undermining public confidence in their assertions that the United Kingdom will never condone, or be complicit in, activities relating to torture. The Government must be seen to be doing all they can to show that the United Kingdom is an active adherent to the rule of international law. Reliance on assurances from the United States is not sufficient to resolve the issue. The United States has taken a far more restricted view on what it defines as torture. While it has retracted its extraordinary previous assertion that the practice has to involve excruciating and agonising pain, it is still unclear whether the view it takes of what constitutes torture would match the test applied by countries such as the United Kingdom. Furthermore, when assessing the risk of torture, it should be borne in mind that the United States applies a more-likely-than-not standard. The United Kingdom, by contrast, applies only a real-risk standard. So the United States could argue that it is not breaking the law by sending individuals to countries where there is only a real risk—the test that we apply. The Opposition have stated that the Government must establish beyond doubt that United Kingdom territory or airspace has not been used for extraordinary rendition, and we maintain this position. We accept the assurances of the Foreign Secretary that the United Kingdom would not facilitate the transfer of an individual from or through the United Kingdom where there are grounds to believe that that person would face a real risk of torture; but we are asking the Government to reconsider carrying out investigations into these flights.