Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report


Formal minutes


Wednesday 21 June 2006

Members present:

Mike Gapes, in the Chair
Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr Eric Illsley

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr John Maples

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Sir John Stanley

Gisela Stuart

Richard Younger-Ross

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report [Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 3 to 5 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 6 to 29 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 30 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 31 to 35 read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Mr John Maples)—brought up, read the first and second time, amended and inserted (now paragraph 36).

Paragraphs 36 and 37 (now paragraphs 37 and 38) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 38 (now paragraph 39) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 39 read and postponed.

Paragraphs 40 to 43 (now paragraphs 41 to 44) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 44 (now paragraph 45) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 45 read, as follows:

We conclude that while recent statements by the Northern Ireland Secretary and Attorney-General that Guantánamo Bay is unacceptable and must be closed down are welcome, the Government's overall policy on Guantánamo Bay remains unclear. We further conclude that the existence of the prison complex at Guantánamo Bay is diminishing US moral authority, and adds to the grievances against the USA and its partners in the 'war against terrorism'; as such, detentions without either national or international authority work against US as well as British interests and hinder the effective pursuit of the 'war against terrorism'. We recommend that the Government as a whole make this clear to its US partners at the highest level, and do so publicly.

Motion made, to leave out paragraph 45 and to insert the following new paragraph:

We acknowledge that there is a problem of what to do with the detainees at Guantánamo and that those detained include some very dangerous terrorists, who it is not possible to treat as ordinary criminals in the US courts. We also conclude that the continuing existence of Guantánamo diminishes US moral authority and adds to the list of grievances against the US. We conclude that those who can be reasonably safely released should be released, those who can be prosecuted as criminals should be prosecuted and that as many others as possible should be returned to their countries of citizenship. We commend the British government for its policy of quietly urging the US government to move towards closing Guantánamo.—(Mr John Maples)

Ordered, That the paragraph be read a second time.

Amendments made.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 8

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr John Maples

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Sir John Stanley

Ms Gisela Stuart

Noes, 3

Mr Eric Illsley

Sandra Osborne

Richard Younger-Ross

Paragraph inserted (now paragraph 46).

Postponed paragraph 39 (now paragraph 40) again read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 46 (now paragraph 47) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 48 read, as follows:

Commenting on the lawfulness of extraordinary rendition, Professor Philippe Sands told us: "[T]here is no international lawyer of whom I am aware who would say that it is justifiable in any circumstances for a State to extra-judicially or extra-legally take someone off the streets, remove them to another country and subject them to treatment, forms of interrogation which may amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture within the meaning of the 1984 Convention against Torture." He went on to say: "under the 1984 Convention against Torture Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, all States parties, including this government, which takes its international responsibilities seriously, have a positive duty to investigate allegations of wrongdoing of this kind. To the best of my knowledge there has not yet been a full investigation of that kind and such an investigation is required where there is credible evidence."

Paragraph disagreed to.

Paragraph 49 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 50 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 51 read, as follows:

Allegations have also arisen of British complicity in the process of rendition. Reports in the Guardian newspaper in September 2005 said: "Aircraft involved in the operations have flown into the UK at least 210 times since 9/11, an average of one flight a week. The 26-strong fleet run by the CIA have used 19 British airports and RAF bases, including Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham, Luton, Bournemouth and Belfast. The favourite destination is Prestwick, which CIA aircraft have flown into and out from more than 75 times. Glasgow has seen 74 flights, and RAF Northolt 33."

Paragraph disagreed to.

Paragraph 52 (now paragraph 51) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(The Chairman)—brought up, read the first and second time and inserted (now paragraph 52).

Paragraphs 53 and 54 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 55, read, amended, divided and agreed to (now paragraphs 55 and 57).

Paragraph 56 (now paragraph 58) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 57 read, amended, agreed to and moved (now paragraph 56).

Paragraph 58 read, as follows:

We conclude that the controversy over extraordinary rendition is causing serious and lasting damage to the reputation of the USA. It is also damaging its allies, including the United Kingdom. We recommended last year that the Government end its policy of obfuscation on the issue of extraordinary rendition. Unfortunately, we have since been obliged to press repeatedly for greater co-operation from the FCO. We reiterate our strong view that the Government must deal with extraordinary rendition in a transparent manner with timely answers to questions from this Committee. We conclude that it is regrettable that far more detailed information has been given in parliamentary answers to opposition party spokesmen than has been given in response to questions from this Committee.

Motion made, to leave out paragraph 58 and to insert the following new paragraph:

We conclude that there has been a lot of speculation about the possible use of rendition to countries where torture can take place, so called 'Black Sites' and the complicity of the British Government, all of which would be very serious matters, but that there has been no hard evidence of the truth of any of these allegations. We accept the denials of the British and US governments that neither UK airspace, or airports have been used by the US government for rendition.—(Mr John Maples)

Ordered, That the paragraph be read a second time.

Amendments made.

Original Question put and agreed to.

Paragraph, as amended, inserted (now paragraph 58).

Paragraphs 59 to 65 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 66 read, as follows:

We conclude that despite the reforms adopted by the 2005 UN General Summit, there remain uncertainties over the international legal framework for humanitarian intervention. We recommend that the Government set out in its response to this Report what steps it is taking to establish a consensus on when intervention on humanitarian grounds is permissible.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the beginning to "We" in line 3 and to insert the words: "We conclude that, in a complex globalising world, the United Kingdom has a strong interest in an international legal framework of rules governing the use of force, which is adhered to by all. In our view the Prime Minister has appeared, on some interpretations, to question the adequacy of the existing laws, particularly in relation to anticipatory self-defence. We conclude that the rules should not be changed except for humanitarian intervention."—(John Horam)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.







Ayes, 1

Mr John Horam

Noes, 11

Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr Eric Illsley

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr John Maples

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Sir John Stanley

Ms Gisela Stuart

Richard Younger-Ross

An Amendment made.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 67 to 119 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 120 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 121 to 127 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 128 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 129 to 138 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 139 read, amended and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up, read the first and second time, amended and inserted (now paragraph 140).

Paragraphs 140 to 166 (now paragraphs 141 to 167) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 167 (now paragraph 168) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 168 to 183 (now paragraphs 169 to 184) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 184 and 185 (now paragraphs 185 and 186) read, amended and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Sir John Stanley)—brought up, read the first and second time, amended and inserted (now paragraph 187).

Paragraphs 186 to 193 (now paragraphs 188 to 195) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 194 (now paragraph 196) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 195 to 198 (now paragraphs 197 to 200) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 199 (now paragraph 201) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 200 (now paragraph 202) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 201 to 204 (now paragraphs 203 to 206) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 205 to 210 (now paragraphs 207 to 212) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Sir John Stanley)—brought up, read the first and second time, amended and inserted (now paragraph 213).

Paragraphs 211 to 215 (now paragraphs 214 to 218) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 216 and 217 (now paragraphs 219 and 220) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 218 (now paragraph 221) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 219 (now paragraph 222) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 220 to 237 (now paragraphs 223 to 240) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Sandra Osborne)—brought up, read the first and second time, amended and inserted (now paragraph 241).

Paragraphs 238 to 241 (now paragraphs 242 to 245) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 242 and 243 (now paragraphs 246 and 247) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 244 to 260 (now paragraphs 248 to 264) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 261 (now paragraph 265) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 262 and 263 (now paragraphs 266 and 267) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 264 (now paragraph 268) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 265 to 270 (now paragraphs 269 to 274) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 271 (now paragraph 275) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 272 to 281 (now paragraphs 276 to 285) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 282 (now paragraph 286) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 283 to 292 (now paragraphs 287 to 296) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 293 read, as follows:

We conclude that Iran is a country of major geo-strategic significance and political, economic and energy importance, which presents the United Kingdom and its allies with a serious diplomatic challenge. We recommend that the Government ensure that sufficient resources and expertise on Iran are available both to the Embassy in Tehran and in London.

Paragraph disagreed to.

Paragraphs 294 to 299 (now paragraphs 297 to 302) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 300 (now paragraph 303) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 301 to 308 (now paragraphs 304 to 311) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 309 (now paragraph 312) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 310 to 319 (now paragraphs 313 to 322) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 320 (now paragraph 323) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 321 to 328 (now paragraphs 324 to 331) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 329 (now paragraph 332) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 330 to 336 (now paragraphs 333 to 339) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 337 read, as follows:

We conclude that military action against Iran would be likely to unleash a host of extremely serious consequences both in the Middle East and elsewhere and would not be guaranteed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the long term. We further conclude that the Government should not undertake military action against Iran until all other options have been exhausted or without broad agreement among its international allies. We also conclude that the lack of international consensus for sanctions against Iran combined with the extremely worrying prospect of military action mean that all possible diplomatic efforts must be applied to reaching a negotiated agreement with Iran; we recommend that the Government make this point absolutely clear to the administration in Washington.

An Amendment made.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from "exhausted" to "We" in line 6. —(Sir John Stanley)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr Greg Pope

Sir John Stanley

Ms Gisela Stuart

Noes, 5

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr John Maples

Sandra Osborne

Mr Ken Purchase

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to (now paragraph 340).

Paragraphs 338 to 346 (now paragraphs 341 to 349) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up, read the first and second time and inserted (now paragraph 350).

Paragraphs 347 and 348 (now paragraphs 351 and 352) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 349 (now paragraph 353) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 350 and 351 (now paragraphs 354 and 355) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 352 read, as follows:

There are also concerns over the shortcomings of the democratic process in Iran. Elections to the Majlis (parliament) in 2004 were deeply flawed. The Guardian Council, an unelected body that constitutionally 'interprets' Islamic orthodoxy, barred around 2,500 of the 8,200 prospective candidates, including 87 existing members, from standing. After a request by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that it review the bans, the Council made minimal changes and warned that any further challenge to its ruling would be "making war on God". Nearly 1,200 more candidates withdrew in protest.

Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "deeply flawed" and to insert the words "so deeply flawed as to make it a wholly illegitimate and bogus parliamentary assembly." —(Andrew Mackinlay)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1

Andrew Mackinlay

Noes, 8

Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr John Maples

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Ms Gisela Stuart

Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 356).

Paragraphs 353 to 355 (now paragraphs 356 to 358) read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought, read the first and second time, amended and inserted (now paragraph 359).

Paragraph 356 read, as follows:

We conclude that the human rights situation in Iran remains extremely unsatisfactory. We recommend that the Government continue to use its diplomatic contacts with the Iranian government to promote respect for human rights and political and religious freedoms, and actively encourage the EU to do likewise. We further conclude that the democratic process in Iran is deeply flawed, and that although this issue must be handled with care, there is a role for the United Kingdom and the international community more broadly in supporting reform efforts. We recommend that the Government seriously consider funding a Farsi BBC television service.

Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the words "extremely unsatisfactory" and to insert the words "quite simply appalling".—(Andrew Mackinlay)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1

Andrew Mackinlay

Noes, 8

Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr John Maples

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Ms Gisela Stuart

Another Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from "likewise." to "We" in line 8. —(Andrew Mackinlay)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to (now paragraph 361).

Paragraphs 357 to 426 (now paragraphs 362 to 431) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 427 (now paragraph 432) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 428 to 435 (now paragraphs 433 to 440) read and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Fourth Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134 (Select Committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.

Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the Minutes of Evidence.

Ordered, That the Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported to the House.—(The Chairman).

The Committee further deliberated.

[Adjourned till Wednesday 28 June at Two o'clock




 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 2 July 2006