---

Armed Forces Bill

I recognise the concern on this matter, in particular as it has been expressed in so far as it relates to the subject of extraordinary rendition. On that area, on behalf of the Government I do not have anything to add to what my noble friend Lord Triesman said on the subject in the debate on 18 July, as has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. But I hope that I am able to reassure noble Lords about the specific concern which has given rise to this amendment: that station commanders might themselves be liable to prosecution as a result of extraordinary rendition flights. I have written to the noble Lord and others and, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has highlighted, only the day before yesterday we had a briefing on this subject. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to put some aspects of this on the record. It is important to stress at the beginning that the position with regard to military flights is that they are given diplomatic clearance on the basis that they are military flights. It is not a matter of looking at each flight and deciding whether or not to clear it. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it is a matter of the clearances being given at the diplomatic level. So, foreign flights are subject to those diplomatic or other flight clearance arrangements and therefore they arrive at a military base with the necessary flight clearances. They land, refuel and leave. That is part of the normal arrangements between states, and as the noble and gallant Lord said, there is a reciprocity aspect to this. I understand the desire for ensuring transparency in these arrangements and I will read Hansard, reflect further on it and then pass on comments to my colleagues in government about the concerns which have been expressed in our discussion this afternoon. But I do not believe that it is appropriate in this Bill to put the responsibility on to commanding officers. We can see no real basis for concern that commanding officers might be criminally liable under the current arrangements. I was not aware of the case in Italy, but I shall study it. I believe that the amendment as drafted would reverse the position. The details of the amendment would impose an impossible burden on commanding officers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Garden, with his experience of military matters—particularly in the air force—knows the burdens on a commander of an air force station. There are a great number of circumstances in which aircraft using our airfields, depending on their cargo, are already subject to numerous procedural and licensing requirements—for example, to prevent smuggling. To impose a burden on the military commanding officer of the base personally to check compliance with all of the requirements for every flight would be onerous and inappropriate. Moreover, the obligations under the provision would have effect only if their breach by a commanding officer made him liable for prosecution under the Bill as an accessory to the breach or at least for neglect of duty. That must be the implication of the amendment, but we believe that that is against all principles of fairness. I hope that what I have said gives noble Lords some reassurance. Given that I have made a commitment to pass on the concerns surrounding the issue of extraordinary rendition, and having heard what I have said, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.