---

Guantanamo Bay

I thank noble Lords for what has been a useful discussion. As was mentioned by a couple of speakers, it is a shame that more noble Lords were not involved, because it is useful to go into some of these areas. They are important. As a backdrop, before we go into detail, it is important for us to remember what a monumental event 11 September was to the United States, which did not lose 60,000 people in the Blitz in London. Something like this had never happened before. It is the largest ever loss of life—just under 3,000 were killed—on US soil as a result of a hostile attack. It was a shattering moment for the US and for the world. There was a realisation that we faced a new kind of threat. It is fair to say that the world has changed as a result. We all know how the United States responded and I do not think that it would be sensible to rehash all those arguments here. However, on one specific point, the United Kingdom has long held that the indefinite detention of detainees is unacceptable and that the Guantanamo Bay—I am never quite sure of its pronunciation, but I am sure that it is not "Gitmo", as the Americans seem to call it—detention facility should be closed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said, one of the problems of Guantanamo Bay is that it has added to our problem and our risk. It has been a cause of radicalisation and further extremism. It was not very clever in any sense. It was wrong that it happened, but it was also damaging and extremely dangerous. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned, not just the people of Britain but also the Government welcomed President Obama’s executive orders of 22 January covering the closure of Guantanamo, interrogation techniques and detention standards. That was a brave and absolutely correct thing to do. These moves demonstrate a real commitment to addressing the challenges of violent extremism in a manner consistent with upholding human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. All of us would applaud that. However, we have not just said that we welcome this commitment to close Guantanamo; we have backed it up with action. We should be proud of that in this nation. We have already taken back into the UK 14 former detainees, nine UK nationals and five individuals who were previously lawfully resident in the country. That is more than any other European country; I will come to numbers, as far as we currently know them, of other European countries a little later. We have also requested the release of one further lawful resident, Mr Shaker Aamer. That is going on at the moment. We continue to discuss with the United States Government how best we can work with them and our European partners to see the closure of Guantanamo, and we will share our experience in accepting the transfer of former detainees. Again, I will come on to the checks we do on them later. Certainly, it is not our current intention that we should take any more. We have done rather well in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether we were taking any more. As I say, we are negotiating on one at the moment, but we have no intention of going any further. A number of speakers raised the issue of Bermuda. We were unaware that that was going to happen until it did. By accepting these detainees from the US Government, Bermuda overstepped our constitutional agreements with it in handling foreign and security policy. It was not a proper thing to do. It was a mistake. We have been clear with the Government of Bermuda that their actions were unacceptable and are looking at the operation of the general entrustment. However, we must deal responsibly with the situation as it stands. We are looking at ways to ensure that these men are dealt with in a properly humanitarian way while protecting the security of the United Kingdom. They do not have travel documents, so they cannot actually get here. We are considering all options and are discussing them with the United States and the Government of Bermuda. That discussion is still ongoing, so I cannot really go into any more detail. I am particularly interested because I am going on holiday to Bermuda in July, so I hope that they are reasonably safe chaps. It would be awful for the Minister responsible for counterterrorism and security to be blown up in a hotel sitting alongside four Uighurs, but I am sure that they are not that dangerous and that it is being handled. On other British Overseas Territories accepting detainees, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned, that is a good question. As I hope we have made clear, we have taken a lot ourselves and have been in touch with all these other Governments in the region and elsewhere who are now fully aware of the need to discuss any such action with us; I think they were before. We have discussed it with them under the terms of their individual entrustments. They have confirmed that they are not in similar discussions with the United States. It was mentioned that the EU justice and home affairs Ministers agreed a framework in early June for accepting into the European Union those individuals cleared for release but who, for compelling reasons, cannot return to their countries of origin. As I understand it, France has so far accepted one individual and Italy will accept three. I do not know how many Ireland will be taking, but Spain is taking four or five, Portugal two or three and Hungary one or two. Those are the latest figures I have and I know no further details. However, something is happening. I was at the JHA conference where this was discussed. One area of concern was the ability of individuals returned to the EU to travel within the Union. It was a key consideration in that debate. People in the Schengen area were particularly concerned, but our borders are a little tauter and tighter. There were discussions about how security concerns would be discussed between states, how people would be monitored and how relevant information would be shared between member states about these people and their movements. President Obama has committed to closing Guantanamo Bay within the year. We would encourage all nations to do their part, as Britain has, to help the President fulfil his commitment, but we recognise the real difficulties in this. We must not kid ourselves; Guantanamo Bay contains some dangerous individuals. Noble Lords will be aware of statistics issued by the US Department of Defense on the number of individuals who have been released from Guantanamo Bay who have returned to fight coalition troops—there is one man who is heavily involved in killing our people in Afghanistan—or to engage in terrorist activities elsewhere in the world. Of course, a number of them are not a risk, which is where the difficulty lies. On top of this, some of the men in the camp come from countries where they would be at risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment on their return, which adds to the problems. People coming back to this country have had a very thorough check by our agencies to look at their details and ensure that they are not a major risk. If they were, the prime role of the Government is to protect our citizens, so we would have to ensure that they were locked up. That brings us on to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He touched on the slightly hypothetical question of whether we had taken steps to identify the conditions in which a difficult, long-term person would be held and the special staffing necessary. None of the people we have taken are anywhere near that category. Some terrorists we have put in prison are inside for quite long periods. The noble Lord raised important issues about psychological profiling and having a proper psychologist looking at them. As far as I am aware, the MoJ does that to an extent. If I am wrong in that, I will get back in writing. It is a valid issue, but it is hypothetical with these people because we do not intend to take any such person. These difficulties mirror our experience in trying to disrupt terrorist activities. When we cannot prosecute or safely deport people, what we do with them is a real issue. It is one of the things we are constantly wrestling with and we have debated it on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions. We are doing our bit to close Guantanamo. Our first priority and overriding responsibility is the safety of the British public, which must come first. We gave full consideration to national security, and we have made sure that those who come back here are not a risk to the British public. Assisting the US to reduce the number of individuals at Guantanamo Bay helps it in its efforts to close it. It has real difficulties, for example, in the negotiations with Palau. It is getting quite desperate in some areas. We need to do everything we can. I cannot go into specific details on individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked about statements. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have updated Parliament on developments when appropriate. Indeed, they reported on the EU discussions. I do not think they could produce much more than that. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, asked about the number of individuals still in Guantanamo. The latest figures I have—I think it is a moveable feast—show that 244 individuals remain detained. All the cases are being reviewed on a rolling basis and, so far, only 30 have been cleared for release—not the figure of 50 that was given. As I said, this is a moving figure and will be changing all the time. We touched on torture and allegations of UK complicity. I would first endorse what the noble Baroness said about our agencies. We are extremely lucky with the quality of the people in them—as well as in the police force, SO15 and across the board. We should always recognise that when we discuss this matter, we must not let any of them be fall guys for some error that might have been made in how instructions were passed out. We condemn torture wholeheartedly; it is not acceptable. I cannot talk about ongoing cases involving the police. They were passed to the Attorney-General and the police are now dealing with them. The Prime Minister has said that we will produce a new code, in which the ISC will be deeply involved. It remains our wish to consolidate the review with the ISC. It is not clear when we will be able to publish it, but we are moving forward as quickly as we can. I agree that that is very important, because our agents and people in the field are at risk. I know, for example, that one of our allies’ agents was killed when carrying out an interview. They are involved with really dangerous things. The alleged torture of Mr Mohamed is the subject of a police investigation which I cannot talk about. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about extraordinary rendition, which we condemn. He mentioned Diego Garcia. It is a fact of record that a couple of flights went through there. We were totally unaware of them; the Americans apologised profusely. It was quite appalling that it should have happened, but I believe much more in mistake than conspiracy. It is amazing how often mistakes happen in huge, complex operations. The issue of rendition is made all the more difficult because the Americans talk of a "war on terror"—I do not like that term—the theatre for which is world wide. That immediately makes the perception of rendition different from the way in which we would look at it. These are difficult, complex issues. As we made clear when we published the CONTEST strategy in March, the Government’s approach to counterterrorism is based fundamentally on a set of guiding principles, foremost among which is respect for human rights. If lose that, we do the terrorists’ job for them. As a nation, we believe that Guantanamo Bay should be closed—I have described how it helps the terrorists—but we cannot just stand on the sidelines and criticise it, which I do not think we have done. We have stated our position; we have not shirked our responsibilities. We have taken 14 detainees and are trying to get a further one. This is a good thing; it strengthens our national security, notwithstanding some of the other issues that then come to light. The message that we send to the rest of the world is that the closure of Guantanamo Bay is fundamental to our concept of how one should behave, which I hope will help our huge prevent strategy for radicalisation and recruitment. I know that we would all agree that promoting human rights, democracy, good governance and the rule of law is the best guarantee of our security. That is the way forward.