Date and
publication
|
Committee question |
FCO response |
Notes
|
25 February 2005 —letter to FCO; 11 March 2005—FCO reply; both published 5 April 2005: Sixth Report: Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism (HC 36-II)
| Has the United Kingdom used "extraordinary rendition" or any other practice of sending suspects to third countries for interrogation? If so, what use has it made, where, when and in relation to whom?
Does the Government regard the use of such methods as (a) legally and (b) morally acceptable? If not, what representations has it made against their use?
| The British Government's policy is not to deport or extradite any person to another state where there are substantial grounds to believe that the person will be subject to torture or where there is a real risk that the death penalty will be applied. Whether rendition is contrary to international law depends on the particular circumstances of each case. We encourage all members of the international community to respect international law and human rights standards.
| The FCO response does not directly answer the questions.
|
25 February 2005
—letter to FCO; 11 March 2005—FCO reply; both published 5 April 2005: Sixth Report: Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism (HC 36-II)
| Has the United Kingdom allowed any other country to use its territory or its airspace for such purposes? If so, which countries, how and when?
| The British Government is not aware of the use of its territory or airspace for the purposes of "extraordinary rendition". The British Government has not received any requests, nor granted any permissions, for the use of UK territory or airspace for such purposes.
| This subsequently turned out not to be true
|
| 25 February 2005—letter to FCO; 11 March 2005—FCO reply; both published 5 April 2005: Sixth Report: Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism (HC 36-II)
| Has the United Kingdom received information which has been gained using these methods? If so, what use has it made of that information?
| As you will be aware, this issue was the subject of a comprehensive inquiry by the Intelligence and Security Committee, whose report (Cm 6469) has just been published. Ministers have also answered a number of Parliamentary questions on this.
| The ISC's Report on The Handling of Detainees by UK Intelligence Personnel in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq was not about rendition and was only tangentially relevant to this question
|
| 22 March 2005; published 5 April 2005: Sixth Report: Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism (HC 36-I)
| We conclude that the Government has failed to deal with questions about extraordinary rendition with the transparency and accountability required on so serious an issue. If the government believes that extraordinary rendition is a valid tool in the war against terrorism, it should say so openly and transparently so that it may be held accountable. We recommend that the Government end its policy of obfuscation and that it give straight answers to the Committee's question of 25 February. (Paragraph 98)
| The Government's response to the Committee's question of 25 February did give a clear explanation of its policy towards rendition. The Government explained that its ". . . policy is not to deport or extradite any person to another state where there are substantial grounds to believe that the person will be subject to torture or where there is a real risk that the death penalty will be applied . . . The British Government is not aware of the use of its territory or airspace for the purposes of `extraordinary rendition'. The British Government has not received any requests, nor granted any permissions, for the use of UK territory or airspace for these purposes . . ." The Government has also explained that it is not in a position to respond to all of the questions posed by the Committee without reference to information Parliament has decided is a matter for the Intelligence and Security Committee.
| The Committee does not accept the premise in the final part of this response, nor does it accept that this justifies the withholding of information from the Committee.
|
| 24 October 2005: Oral evidence from the Secretary of State
| Q105 Sandra Osborne: I would like to ask you about the issue of extraordinary rendition. In response to this Committee's report of last year on the war against terrorism, the government said that it was not aware of the use of its territory or air space for the purposes of extraordinary rendition. However, it appears that there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that the UK air space is indeed being utilised for this purpose, albeit mainly in the media. Some of the suggestions seem to be extremely detailed. For example, the Guardian has reported that aircraft involved in operations have flown into the UK at least 210 times since 9/11, an average of one flight a week. It appears that the favourite destination is Prestwick Airport, which is next to my constituency, as it happens. Can you comment on that? What role is the UK playing in extraordinary rendition?
| Mr Straw: The position in respect of extraordinary rendition was set out in the letter that the head of our parliamentary team wrote to Mr Priestley, your Clerk, on 11 March; and the position has not changed. We are not aware of the use of our territory or air space for the purpose of extraordinary rendition. We have not received any requests or granted any permissions for use of UK territory or air space for such purposes. It is perfectly possible that there have been two hundred movements of United States aircraft in and out of the United Kingdom and I would have thought it was many more; but that is because we have a number of US air force bases here, which, under the Visiting Forces Act and other arrangements they are entitled to use under certain conditions. I do not see for a second how the conclusion could be drawn from the fact that there have been some scores of movements of US military aircraft—well, so what—that that therefore means they have been used for rendition. That is a very long chain!
| Does not respond to the question about UK civilian airports, eg Prestwick
|
| 24 October 2005: Oral evidence from the Secretary of State
| Q107 Mr Keetch: They are not flying under US military flags; these are Gulfstream aircraft used by the CIA. They have a 26-strong fleet of Gulfstream aircraft that are used for this purpose. These aircraft are not coming into British spaces; they are coming into airports. Some are into bases like Northolt, and some into bases like Prestwick. Whilst it is always good to have the head of your parliamentary staff respond to our Clerk, Mr Priestley, could you give us an assurance that you will investigate these specific flights; and, if it is the case that these flights are being used for the process of extraordinary rendition, which is contrary to international law and indeed contrary to the stated policy of Her Majesty's Government, would you attempt to see if they should stop?
| Mr Straw: I would like to see what it is that is being talked about here. I am very happy to endorse, as you would expect, and I did endorse, the letter sent by our parliamentary team to your Clerk on 11 March. I am happy, for the avoidance of any doubt, to say that I specifically endorse its contents. If there is evidence, we will look at it, but a suggestion in a newspaper that there have been flights by unspecified foreign aircraft in and out of the United Kingdom cannot possibly add up to evidence that our air space or our facilities have been used for the purpose of unlawful rendition. It just does not.
| The aircraft are not `unspecified' |
| 24 October 2005: Oral evidence from the Secretary of State and follow-up letter dated 22 November
| Q110 Mr Illsley: Foreign Secretary, the letter which you supplied to the Committee in March which gave the conclusion that the British Government is not aware of the use of its territory or air space for the purpose of extraordinary rendition was taken at face value by most members of the Committee at that time, before the election. We took that to mean that we were not aware of any extraordinary rendition, and that it was not happening. The press reports were therefore something of a surprise. Would our Government be contacted by any country using our airspace, taking suspects to other countries? Would we be asked for permission or would there be any circumstances where we would be contacted; or is it the case that it could well be happening but that our Government is not aware of it simply because we have not been informed, or our permission is not necessary?
| Mr Straw: Mr Illsley, on the precise circumstances in which foreign governments apply for permission to use British air space, I have to write to you, because it is important that I make that accurate.[*] What Mr Stanton on my behalf said in the letter is exactly the same: why would I, for a second, knowingly provide this Committee with false information, if I had had information about rendition? We do not practise rendition, full-stop. I ought to say that whether rendition is contrary to international law depends on the particular circumstances of the case; it depends on each case, but we do not practise it. I would have to come back to you on that question.
* Official permission (ie Diplomatic clearance) is not needed for non-scheduled, non-commercial civil aircraft, including VIP flights over-flying or landing at civilian airports in the UK. In such cases the flight operator simply files the aircraft flight plan to the central Integrated Flight Plans Systems (IFPS). In the case of military or State aircraft landing at military airfields, clearance is sought from the MOD. Certain countries have a block clearance on a yearly renewable basis in a quid pro quo agreement (US, Germany, Italy and many others). Otherwise all nations must formally request permission to land or transit. However, neither international nor national aviation regulations require the provision of passenger information when transiting UK territory or airspace.
| The letter is silent on the question of whether the CIA aircraft which use UK civilian airports are State aircraft or "non-commercial civil aircraft".
|
| 23 November 2005: oral evidence from Ian Pearson MP
| Q119 Sir John Stanley: Could you give the Committee an assurance that officials in your department or, perhaps, elsewhere in government know perfectly well what is going on in terms of extraordinary rendition flights through UK airspace but have made the decision not to tell Ministers so that Ministers can hide behind the answer which was given to this Committee on 24 October: "We are not aware of the use of our territory or airspace for the purpose of extraordinary rendition"?
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: The remains the case, and I do not think it is right to say that officials are deliberately keeping information away from Ministers because that is the best way of protecting us from having to answer difficult questions. I think it is the simple truth that we are not aware, and that is the position at the moment, but we are certainly very aware of the allegations that have been made, we have seen the press reports and, as I say, the Foreign Secretary is asking the US for more information and will be writing in his official capacity as Presidency of the EU to do just that.
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.
| Information concerning two renditions in the late 1990s came to light 3 weeks after this meeting
|
|
| | |
