---

Binyam Mohamed

My Lords, I declare the obvious interest that I was director-general of the Security Service at the time when some of the events of this case occurred. However, it would be wrong of me to speak of that in this House, not only because of the Attorney-General’s work but also because I have no access to the papers and cannot remind myself of the details and chronology of this case. However, all those details were shared by me and, I believe, my successor with the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. I shall make three points not directly related to this case as background. The first is to endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, about the third-country rule. I sympathise with those who think that rules are there to be challenged and checked for continuing validity. However, it is pretty well impractical always to check whether something has been derived from torture unless you have reason to suspect it at the beginning. Literally thousands of pieces of intelligence are shared daily between the UK, our allies and people who might not so reasonably be described as our allies. That intelligence would dry up if we did not honour the third-country rule. Not all other counties honour it; in that case, we deny them our intelligence. The second—