---

Binyam Mohamed

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I say with confidence that all sides of your Lordships’ House believe that no British Government should participate in or condone torture under any circumstances and that the due process of law should be upheld and followed in all cases. The case of Binyam Mohamed raises serious questions about both these principles. I want to ask the Minister about three things: first, Binyam Mohamed’s detention at Guantanamo Bay; secondly, the allegation that UK security and intelligence officials have been complicit in torture; and, finally, how these issues bear on our important intelligence relationship with the United States. The Minister outlined the facts of Binyam Mohamed’s detention by US authorities and the case that they brought against him. All sides of your Lordships’ House support the new Administration’s decision to close the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay. Since August 2007, the Government have sought Mr Mohamed’s return to the UK. To date, the US has declined to release him. What is the basis for the request for his release and what was the basis for his return being denied? Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are still continuing to seek the return of Mr Binyam Mohamed? Also, in the light of the Administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, can he tell us if they have indicated whether they will now accede to the Government’s request? If the Government are still seeking the return of Mr Mohamed to this country, what assessment have they made about the threat to public security that his return could present? Let me turn to the allegations that Binyam Mohamed had been subject to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and that security officials from this country were complicit in this. In August last year, a High Court ruling found that, "““by seeking to interview””," Binyam Mohamed, "““in the circumstances described and supplying information and questions for his interviews, the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the United States authorities went far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing””." It also said that the security services had facilitated interviews with Binyam Mohamed ““in the knowledge”” of what had been reported to them about his treatment and conditions of detention. Yesterday’s ruling confirmed that, in the court’s view, Mr Mohamed had an arguable case that he had been subject to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. As my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary said in another place, if such torture has occurred, it is absolutely wrong. I understand that the Government raised the allegations of torture with the US Government and asked them to investigate. Can the Minister say whether this investigation is complete and will he tell your Lordships’ House about the outcome? In a letter dated 29 September last year to Mr David Lidington, the then Minister of State in the FCO, Dr Kim Howells, said that the Government rejected the allegation that security and intelligence officials from this country were complicit in torture. But given the anxieties displayed by the court on this very point, can the Minister confirm the definition of ““complicity”” in the Government’s language? The High Court ruling from last August contains an extract of a letter sent to a UK security official. The letter said that, as the detainee in question was, "““not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent””," treatment that is not in accordance with appropriate standards. That might legally be the case but, morally, should not the Government have made the strongest possible representations to the US about poor treatment? Were any such representations made? How does the Government’s position that security and intelligence officials were not complicit in torture square with referring the matter of possible criminal wrongdoing to the Attorney-General? When does the Minister expect the Attorney-General’s investigations to be completed? Finally, I should like to look briefly at the bearing that this has on the important intelligence relationship with the United States. The Minister is right to say that our intelligence relationship with the US is vital to our national security—no argument. He is also right to say that, by convention, the sensitive information of another country is not and should not be publicly disclosed without that country’s permission. This is well established practice. On the basis of their understanding of statements made to them by FCO officials, in their High Court ruling the judges said that, "““the United States Government’s position is that, if the redacted paragraphs are made public, then the United States Government will re-evaluate its intelligence sharing relationship with the United Kingdom with the real risk that it would reduce the intelligence provided””." Can the Minister confirm that the US Government made such representations and related them to this case? The statement of the National Security Council in Washington, which was quoted by the Minister when he repeated the Statement, appears to me to be a restatement of the general position only. When there is a suggestion of wrongdoing, we have to try to find a way through. It is also important that the public should have trust in the integrity of the UK/US intelligence relationship. So does the Minister accept that the Government must do everything in their power to enable the release of the information without prejudicing our relationship? Yesterday the Prime Minister’s spokesman said that Downing Street had ““not engaged”” with the new Administration on the detail of the case. If that is correct, will the Minister say when such engagement will take place? Given the new Administration’s position on extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay and torture, would it not be worth checking with the White House whether it cannot, in this important instance, help to find a way through by ordering release? Even if complete release would be prejudicial to national security, could at least some of the redacted details be made public by separating them from sensitive intelligence information, thus aiding the court?