Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
IAN PEARSON
MP AND MS
ALEXANDRA HALL
HALL
23 NOVEMBER 2005
Q120 Sir John Stanley: So if the US Government
should be replying to the Foreign Secretary's letter confirming
that such flights have been taking place, when we come to ask
you at what date did officials in your department or elsewhere
within government know of this, the answer will be, from what
you have just said, that no official knew anything at any time?
Ian Pearson: I am certainly not
aware of any official who has knowledge of these flights and is
keeping that knowledge to him or herself. We have looked into
this and, as a Government, we just do not have information (when
I say "as a Government" that means officials as well
as Ministers) on this.
Q121 Chairman: Can I ask you a couple
of questions about torture? Do we, as a Government, use information
which comes from other countries where they have derived that
information through torture?
Ian Pearson: Can I, firstly, say
that the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture and we work
hard with our international partners to eradicate this abhorrent
practice. We are in a situation, and when replying to your question
directly let me just say that the UK has extensive safeguards
in regard to evidence that may be obtained by torture. The basic
position is this: we, on a routine basis, will get a range of
intelligence information from a wide variety of sources. Where
that information comes from detainees and we have some suspicions
that it might have been obtained by torture, that will be taken
into account in our assessment and evaluation of the evidence.
Q122 Chairman: So the answer to my question
is yes, you do make use of information which is derived from torture?
Ian Pearson: Let me answer it
as directly as possible. As I say, the situation is we do get
a wide range of information from a wide variety of sources. Where
it comes from detainees and where we have grounds to believe that
it might have been obtained through torture that would influence
our assessment and evaluation of the evidence. Let me also say
on this that when we get to the situation where there is evidence
that might prevent a future suicide bombing and we have suspicions
that that evidence might have been obtained through torture, well,
I think we have to use that evidence. I do not think you can take
a purist approach and completely ignore what might turn out to
be vital evidence that will save the lives of UK citizens. However,
let me be very clear that the UK does not condone and does not
accept and has extremely strong procedures and safeguards as well
with regards to evidence, and has a very strong policy indeed
in terms of evidence obtained by torture. We do not condone those
practices.
Q123 Chairman: We may not condone it
but do we ask other countries where they got their information
from?
Ian Pearson: We do not because
other countries know the UK's very strong stance against torture.
Frankly, I do not think there would be a lot of point saying to
a particular country: "Was this information obtained by torture?"
because I do not think they are likely to tell us the truth.
Q124 Mr Purchase: The Prime Minister,
answering questions to the Liaison Committee yesterday, made a
plea that most things should be weighed in the balance but he
did condemn without reservation on the practices of torture. Now,
you have just told us that we have to be realistic and understand
that testimony gained under torture might still be useful. Should
we not be condemning it without equivocation and should not our
Government be practising what it preaches and not make use of
this evidence? If it has come to us via torture and we believe
that we should condemn torture without equivocation, how on earth
can we have this—well, it is sophistry of the worst kind
in a way—and say "We will still use this evidence"?
Ian Pearson: Let me be clear.
I totally condemn evidence obtained by torture; the Government
totally condemns torture; it is not acceptable, it is abhorrent—
Q125 Mr Purchase: Tell us we do not use
it then.
Ian Pearson: But in the real world,
if you are seriously saying to me that if a piece of information
comes to the attention of the British Government that there might
be an incident and this is strong information that would save
lives, are you really saying that we should put this aside and
do nothing about it because it might have been obtained through
the use of torture?
Q126 Mr Purchase: It is not for you to
ask me questions, it is for me to ask you.
Ian Pearson: I am just saying
to you these are incredibly difficult decisions. I think the Prime
Minister is right to say they should be weighed in the balance
and that, in these very extreme circumstances, if it is the case
that we could save British lives by using some information which
has been obtained by horrible means then I think we probably do
have to do that.
Q127 Mr Maples: I wanted to ask you a
question on that which my colleague did not want you to ask him,
which is that it seems to me that it depends on what the information
is used for, in the same way that we have laws which stop us using
evidence improperly obtained against criminals but it does not
stop us going and recovering the stolen goods because we have
obtained the information improperly. It seems to me that if the
Government were to be given information by a foreign country that,
say, a terrorist plot was being hatched by these three people
in this place, and you said: "It has come from Uzbekistan
or Egypt or somewhere and we are not going to use it", I
think this Committee would have some very tough questions to ask
you afterwards if there was a terrorist outrage. I wonder if you
think it is right to draw a distinction between the purposes for
which the information is used. In other words, if you receive
that kind of information and you then use it for our own police
and security services to follow up and investigate whether it
is true or not or not, that is rather different to using information
that might have been obtained by torture to actually prosecute
someone.
Ian Pearson: Torture is always
wrong, it can never be defended, and we as a UK Government never
use torture for any purpose including obtaining information. We
certainly would not instigate others to do so. However, in the
very real circumstances that you outline where information, which
we have not asked for but which becomes available and we have
suspicions about it being obtained under torture, could save British
lives and that that is the major purpose of it, then I think it
would be wrong and irresponsible for a government to ignore it.
These are incredibly difficult decisions. That is why elected
representatives are put in charge of weighing these things in
the balance and making judgments about them. I notice that when
some of the non-governmental organisations have been asked these
questions it is very difficult for them to find answers to this
because nobody—and I repeat nobody—feels comfortable
about this at all. Certainly (let me be as absolutely plain as
I can) the UK Government absolutely condemns the use of torture
but, as I say, in the very, very rare occurrence where we have
information that comes into our hands from a third country where
we think that it might be obtained through torture, I do not personally
think that it would be right, if that information could save British
lives, that we should just say: "No, put it aside. We are
not interested; we do not want to receive it." I think we
have a responsibility to protect our people.
Q128 Chairman: Can I take you on to a
related area, which is that previously the Government told us
that it was not policy to deport or extradite any person to another
state where there are substantial grounds to believe that that
person will be subjected to torture or where there is a real risk
that the death penalty would be applied. Yet with regard to (I
am not asking about the death penalty) torture, the countries
which do torture people, we are now engaged in a process of producing
memoranda of understanding and so-called diplomatic assurances
and then considering removing people to a number of countries
where it is known that torture has been and, as far as I am aware,
still is used on occasion. How can we guarantee that people who
we do send back to some of these countries in North Africa or
elsewhere are not going to be subjected to torture? Do you agree
that if there is, as was stated in the Chahal case in 1996
or in a more recent case to do with Russia, an endemic or recalcitrant
problem people should not be sent back to those countries, even
if you get an assurance?
Ian Pearson: The first thing to
say is that this has not happened yet and we have not—
Q129 Chairman: You have not sent anyone
back yet?
Ian Pearson: We have not sent
anyone back yet who has been detained under our terrorist legislation.
We are, as you rightly say, looking to negotiate Memoranda of
Understanding and we have signed Memoranda of Understanding with
Jordan and Libya. The wording of the MOUs makes clear that treatment
is expected to be in accordance with international obligations.
You rightly mentioned that we will not send people back where
there is a substantial risk that they will be tortured. That is
a phrase that comes from the European Convention and it is something
that is expected as part of the Memoranda of Understanding. We
believe that deportation with assurances, such as Memoranda of
Understanding, and, also, monitoring arrangements being put in
place, which are again part of the MOUs, provides sufficient safeguards
to meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human
Rights. These matters, however, will undoubtedly be tested in
the courts, which will provide a further reassurance that what
we are doing is acceptable and in conformity with our human rights
obligations.
Q130 Chairman: How are we going to monitor
that these assurances are kept?
Ian Pearson: Written into the
Memoranda of Understanding is information about the monitoring
requirements, and so the intention is that we would deport suspected
terrorists and we would do so to countries who signed Memoranda
of Understanding and who agreed to monitoring arrangements. This
will require a significant amount of work. We are still discussing
the details of monitoring arrangements at the moment, but we will
go a long way to make sure that we take sufficient steps to have
a level of confidence that there will not be a substantial risk
to these people if they are deported.
Q131 Chairman: Can I have an assurance
that nobody is going to be deported until you have got satisfactory
monitoring arrangements in place?
Ian Pearson: Yes, I think I can
give you that assurance.
Chairman: Can we move on, please, to
Iraq?
Q132 Mr Keetch: There have been, as you
know, Minister, a number of high profile issues resulting in British
military personnel involved in abuse in Iraq, including court
martials. There was also the case of the proceedings that were
recently dropped against some British soldiers accused of murder
in Iraq. I am aware and the Committee is aware of the rules of
engagement of the British Armed Forces. Can you tell us a bit
about, if you like, the rules of engagement of the British based
private military companies that exists in Iraq, because it is
certainly the case that there are thousands of British citizens
in Iraq carrying weapons working for private military companies
that are not covered by British Government rules of engagement
for armed forces but, nevertheless, are doing work in that country?
Does the British Government give advice to those companies as
to what kind of human rights activities and security training
and such that they should be doing out there?
Mr Pearson: I think that question
is probably better directed at the Ministry of Defence, who are
likely to have better information about this. As Minister with
responsibility for human rights I would want to make sure that
the human rights obligations of any individual and, indeed, any
company, whether it is operating in Iraq or wherever, are closely
followed, and certainly we want would want to make sure that UK
companies who operate in Iraq are fully aware of their human rights
obligations.
Q133 Mr Keetch: But you would certainly
like it to be known that such British companies or British citizens
working for such companies in Iraq would be expected to operate
within the similar guidance that we would expect of them if they
were operating in the UK, for example? You would expect them to
adhere to British standards, if you like. Shall I put it that
way?
Ian Pearson: Yes.
Q134 Sir John Stanley: Do we think there
are any other locations in Iraq where people are being held captive
in the totally unacceptable conditions that have recently been
exposed in the south?
Ian Pearson: I do not know. I
do not have any information that would lead me to believe that
there are other locations, but, again, that is not necessarily
the information that a human rights minister might routinely expect
to receive.
Q135 Sir John Stanley: What response
was received from the Iraqi government to the very deep expressions
of concern that the local foreign secretary made to the Iraqi
government about the uncovering of these prisoners being held
in hell-hole conditions?
Ian Pearson: We have raised our
very serious concerns at a very senior level with the Iraqi government,
and the Foreign Secretary has lobbied Vice President Mehdi, who
was visiting London at the time, and on October 17 we also released
a statement, as EU Presidency, expressing our concern and welcoming
the investigation that the Iraqis have launched into this incident.
It is my understanding that the investigation is still going on,
and clearly we will continue to show a very strong interest in
the investigation and the outcome of it.
Q136 Sir John Stanley: Coming to a different
issue, do you think there is any risk that the trial of Saddam
Hussein may collapse because of the inability to provide adequate
security both to the lawyers involved and also to witnesses?
Ian Pearson: What I can say on
this is that we do want the trial to continue. We want to ensure
that Saddam receives proper justice and a transparent and an open
trial process. We have talked certainly to the Iraqis about this—they
know very clearly our views on this—and there had to be
concerns with the recent two horrible murders of the lawyers,
but we think it right that the trial should continue, and we have
been encouraging the Iraqi government to make sure that all the
necessary steps are taken to provide protection for the legal
team and, indeed, all those others who are involved in the trial
process.
Q137 Sir John Stanley: Would you agree
that it would be a pretty grim reflection of the consequences
of US and British intervention in Iraq that we could not leave
it if we were simply unable to provide a proper judicial process
to try the former dictator?
Ian Pearson: It is not up to us
to provide a proper judicial process. It is up to the Iraqis,
and we should acknowledge the great strides that they have made.
They are in a far more forward position than they were with regards
to the IST and the legal process, and I think it is up to us to
encourage them to make sure that they make further improvements
to their legal processes, and I am confident that that is what
they want to do for the future as well.
Q138 Andrew Mackinlay: I want to take
you back to Paul Keech's point when he questioned you about private
security companies and you referred Paul Keech to the Ministry
of Defence. Can I gently remind you that before you were a minister
of foreign office the Foreign Office produced a Green Paper on
the private security companies, not the Ministry of Defence. It
came here to this Committee, who produced a report, and the motive
was regulation: because one foresaw some of the things which Paul
Keech referred to. I remember at the time taunting the Foreign
Office, saying, "This is going to be pigeon holed",
and broadly they said, "My God, how can you suggest such
a thing?" Is it not pigeon-holed? Is it dead? Is this parrot
dead, this Green Paper on regulating private military companies
because of human right considerations?
Ian Pearson: I am not cited on
this, so I cannot give you an answer on that other than the general
answer.
Q139 Andrew Mackinlay: You see my point,
though, do not you? The fact is you are the human rights minister.
It was not I who initiated it, it was during Denis McShane's period
and Robin Cook's, and it was a Green Paper produced, we dealt
with it at length and it is dead as a dodo. It is dead as a dodo,
I put it to you, for the reasons which Mr Keech referred to, the
fact that it is too sensitive. It raises the question of rules
of engagement, recruitment, where they come from, where they are
going to, companies being able to dissolve themselves at arm's
length, distance, "Nothing to do with us, guv", et cetera,
et cetera, et cetera. Could you come back to us on this, because
I am putting it to you, the Government have ducked it because
it is a hot potato and it does raise serious human rights issues
and you should know about it?
Mr Pearson: I am certainly not
prepared to pronounce the parrot dead yet.
| 
