---

Guantanamo Bay

I thank my noble friend Lord Bridges for introducing this timely debate. It is rather a pity that more Members of our House were not here to join in. As my noble friend said, we on these Benches have long called for the closure of the facility at Guantanamo Bay on grounds that I think we all share: that if we, the coalition countries, seek to respond to terrorism in ways that undermine shared values, the outcome will be to achieve precisely the objectives that the terrorists seek. It is therefore extremely good news that the facility is going to be closed, although I think that we all recognise that it poses some real challenges, including the requirement not to return detainees who are assessed as posing no security threat to countries where they might as a result of their return be tortured or face other degrading treatment, and, in countries where they may be received, that they do not pose a security threat, which is one of the main concerns of those of us in this Room today. The net result of that, as we are beginning to see, is that the closure process is going take perhaps a little longer than the US Administration might have wished. Does the Minister know how many detainees the US Government have now assessed as being capable of release? Reports have consistently indicated that something in the order of 220 detainees are still being held at the facility, which is still quite a large number, of whom 50 have been cleared for release without trial. Has he any further update on how many are going to face some kind of process and how many are to be released? Is the UK going to take any of them? I understand there are 50 of them, but there may be more. Have we had further requests from the US Administration? I turn to those who are coming back to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the US/EU statement of 15 June on the closure of Guantanamo Bay. It contains two slightly contradictory sentences. It states: ""the primary responsibility for closing Guantanamo and finding residence for the former detainees rests with the US"." It goes on to state, ""we also recall the request by the Government of the United States to assist it in finding residence for some of those persons cleared for release ... whom it will not prosecute, and who for compelling reasons cannot return to their countries of origin"." It goes on: ""Decisions on the reception of former detainees and the determination of their legal status falls within the sole responsibility and competence of a receiving EU Member State"." That slightly suggests that in general we are prepared to take people, but in particular and in practice, that may be very difficult. Does the Minister have information about how many of our partners in the EU are likely to be taking them and how does the UK compare with them? The UK has already accepted 14 detainees over the years, the most recent being Mr Binyam Mohamed, whom I shall return to in a minute. The Foreign Office has said that it regards that as "already a significant contribution", implying that we are not willing to take many, if any, more. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that situation. The safety of the British public is of paramount concern. If detainees are coming back to this country, and particularly if there are to be more of them, can the Government explain the criteria they are adopting for admission and how they will ensure that these individuals do not represent a security threat? In the case of Mr Binyam Mohamed, can the Minister update us on his status? Will he remain resident in the UK? If so, on what basis? Is he judged to be a security threat? If so, what would be the circumstances of his residence here and how, if necessary, will the general public be protected? The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, are relevant in this particular case and more generally. We need to know. It places a burden on our security services if these people have to be detained and if they are not, but are a threat, they are a danger to the public. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but it would be good to have some clarity. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other speakers referred to the detainees who went to Bermuda. I am as curious as they are about the circumstances under which this transaction took place. It is a great oddity that when two sovereign states are close allies, the sovereign power in Bermuda appears to have been uninformed and kept out of the picture. I do not regard that as a friendly act. It seems improper conduct on the part of the United States. I hope a protest has been delivered. As a practical matter, what is the status of these Chinese Uighurs? Are they considered to be a security risk? Will they have freedom of movement? Are they expected to integrate into Bermudan society in the long term? Are they at liberty to leave? There are some interesting questions, and if this experiment goes wrong, we, as the sovereign power, will be landed with the problem. I have another question about the EU/US statement to which Her Majesty’s Government have signed up. It says that, ""as a result of EU rules relating to an area without controls at the internal borders, a decision of one Member State to accept"," a detainee and the determination of their legal status falls within the sole responsibility and competence of the receiving EU state. That is as may be, but as my noble friend has said, people can travel around inside the EU. I would be grateful to know what internal arrangements between member states will be made to ensure that the Schengen arrangements—the UK is certainly not a full member but it has a relationship—do not become a means of evading the necessary security precautions. In the UK, our security services are still facing allegations about complicity in torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. That is not the object of today's discussion in detail, but I would be grateful for any update that the Minister can give us. It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary continues to refuse to publish the guidance from the Government. I know that it is old guidance and the new guidance that the Government have promised will be published when it is consolidated and reviewed, but when will that be? I also hope that the Government will be willing to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee’s further report on alleged complicity of the agencies in torture and other degrading treatment, which we know was submitted to the Prime Minister in March. I say that not out of idle curiosity because it is important that we do what we can to preserve the good name of the country. Our intelligence services do such extraordinarily important work on our behalf that we must not let this odour of suspicion about their standards and behaviour linger. It is an important part of having clarity and confidence—clarity about the facts and confidence in the agencies of government. Finally, on the question of Mr Binyam Mohamed, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an update on where the Attorney-General has got to in her investigation and whether there is any indication of when her investigations are likely to be concluded. There is a key lesson to be drawn from the operation of the facility at Guantanamo. As I said at the beginning, let us not in future respond to the terrorist threat in ways that defeat the purposes of our own society. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify some of the issues that have been raised in the debate because the object of debates of this kind are on the one hand to know what the security situation is, and on the other to know that we are securing ourselves in ways that are consistent with our liberties.