---

Armed Forces Bill

moved Amendment No. 183A: After Clause 354, insert the following new clause- ““RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMANDING OFFICERS FOR FLIGHTS BY FOREIGN AIRCRAFT AT AIRFIELDS (1) Where any foreign military or civil aircraft movement occurs at a military facility, the commanding officer of the facility must satisfy himself that the aircraft is complying with United Kingdom legal requirements and international obligations. (2) If the commanding officer is not so satisfied, he shall forthwith- (a) prevent further movement of the aircraft; and (b) inform higher authority.”” The noble Lord said: My amendment is designed to clarify the position for commanding officers of any service who have an airfield under their command if they have suspicions that the aircraft movements on their airfield contravene either national or international law. The Minister sent me a letter today in which he picks up one aspect of that: extraordinary rendition. Of course there are other possible breaches of international or national law, for example the movement of weapons from one country to another when there is an international sanction. But perhaps we may just consider extraordinary rendition for a moment, which we debated in the context of the Civil Aviation Bill and will debate in the context of the Police and Justice Bill. This is a narrow question, but we now know that military airfields are used for flights by Central Intelligence Agency aircraft. The status of the aircraft was difficult to establish within the Civil Aviation Bill—whether they were commercial, civil, military or what—but we know that Brize Norton and Northolt have certainly been used and that the transits of those aircraft are to and from places where there might be interest in moving people for interrogation. We do not know whether that happens, and we receive endless assurances from the Government that they have always received assurances from the American Government that that is not what the flight is being used for. Nevertheless, there is a question to be asked: what is the responsibility of the commanding officer? I raise that because there has now been a case in Italy where a member of the Italian military in the intelligence branch has been prosecuted for assisting in extraordinary rendition. So military officers appear within Europe to be liable if they have in some way assisted in extraordinary rendition. My amendment seeks to make clear where the buck stops for the commanding officer, the limits of responsibility, and what action should be taken to discharge that responsibility. I beg to move.