---

Armed Forces Bill

I support the amendment, but it does not really deal with the essence of the problem, which has been debated on many occasions. On 18 July, in a debate on arrangements made for extraordinary rendition, the noble Lord, Lord Garden, asked the very question, at cols. 1219-20 of the Official Report, that concerns us today. I shall not take very much time today, as I spoke in that debate; in fact, I initiated it. At cols. 1223-24, which is the crucial passage, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, dealing specifically with the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, spoke about arrangements for extraordinary rendition and said that exactly the same arrangements apply to the transfer of weaponry. He said: "““On military airfields, the United Kingdom has given the United States military and state aircraft””—" I think that includes those on charter to the CIA— "““clearance to overfly … and to land at military airfields in the United Kingdom without seeking prior permission””.—[Official Report, 18/7/06; col. 1223.]" Soon after, we read in the papers, and it was never denied, that the same arrangements were being made to carry sophisticated weaponry from the United States through Prestwick, to land for refuelling, to Israel to bolster the attack on Hezbollah, for which the ceasefire had been postponed. One need not, in the context of international obligations, start to enumerate how many are involved. Therefore, I very much support this proposal. However, I think that the background is relevant to this degree. On 24 July, I sought to ask a Private Notice Question on this matter. The Question was: "““To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether notwithstanding any extant arrangement they have proposals to ensure that aircraft used by the Government of the United States which break their flights to refuel at civil and military airports in the UK shall be searched and all weaponry removed””." The Question was rejected on the advice that there had been no substantial development since the debate on 18 July and that it did not fulfil the dual criteria of urgency and importance. Of course it does not matter that the Private Notice Question was refused. But it does show the attitude of the Government. One must be careful here, because I think it is fairly understood that at that time—over the ceasefire and the delivery of arms—the attitude of the Cabinet was split. Inevitably, the Private Notice Question was going to fall into a quicksand. I mention the background not to complain that they did not take my Question—that does not matter. What does matter is that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Garden, should be put in context with the background. I support the amendment.