Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
RT HON
JACK STRAW
MP, MR TIM
BARROW AND
MR DAVID
FROST
13 DECEMBER 2005
Q20 Chairman: Thank you. We have
to move on.
Mr Straw: Can I also just say,
because it may be helpful to the Committee, the rebate is rising
as well. It has been five billion euros in this financial perspective,
on average. It is going to rise to, on average, seven billion
euros in the next financial perspective.
Andrew Mackinlay: Can I just bounce this
off the Foreign Secretary? It is frustrating that the thing is
going to be published tomorrow when one might have thought it
might perhaps have been possible today—that is an aside—but
what happens if there is deadlock? We do need to understand, Chairman,
if everyone digs in, how that funding operation goes to the European
Union. The other thing which I wanted to ask you. I am told that
one of the problems for the European Union ten is that they actually
have not got the machinery of government to spend some of the
rebate. How true is that in your view?
Mr Straw: Three points, Mr Mackinlay.
First, you express frustration about the fact that we have not
published the proposals to date. If they had been ready we would
have published them. Let me say, I do my very best to ensure that
Members are given advance notice of these things, and that is
why I am making every effort to ensure they are made available
tomorrow morning in advance of the debate. I feel perfectly confident
about these proposals. In any event, it would be totally inappropriate
to try and hide them. Your second point was about deadlock. Decisions
on the budget require unanimity, so, as we saw in June, if there
is not unanimity there is no agreement. The current budget runs
until the end of next year, but if there is deadlock then the
treaties and practice provide for budgets to be rolled over, and
there are various mechanisms, and Mr Frost can explain these in
detail, by which, if they wish, the European parliament can "denounce
the position of the European Council". The overall effect
of all this is that, roughly speaking, you run the pattern of
budget, maximum budget, at about 1.05.
Mr Frost: A bit less.
Mr Straw: A bit less, nought four,
nought five. We do not want to do that though, because it becomes
very static and we want to move forward. One of the problems is
that if there is no agreement it makes the problem which was mentioned
in your third question about the capacity of the accession countries
to spend what has been allocated much more difficult because they
need long lead times to build up their capacity. None of them
up to now, and they have only been members since May of last year,
have been able to spend what has been allocated. That is not unusual,
it happens with countries being in the European Union for a long
time, and they have had a history of under spending, monies have
been allocated under external aid budgets in the past as well,
so they are very anxious for a budget deal so that they have certainty
about the levels. Also some of them are anxious about a budget
deal by December because of what is called the "statistical
effect", in other words that they benefit from the statistics
which would apply to a budget currently available, and they will
lose out under next years statistics because their economies are
growing and so fewer areas will qualify for this spend. This is
part of our detailed discussions with the A10 colleagues. What
we have done is this. We have reduced the headline figure for
structural cohesion fund spending in the A10 countries because
we had to get the budget down from 1.06, which was unacceptable
to many partners, to a lower figure, and a number of budget heads
were reduced—SCF for the A10, rural development, for example,
in the existing 15, and some other changes as well. At the same
time as doing that we proposed a series of technical, but very
important, changes which will make it easier for these countries
to spend so they are able to roll-over allocations from one year
to the next more easily. Two countries said that they wanted to
use structural cohesion funds for social housing—so for
the first time we are saying that that should be available for
social housing—and there are many other changes like that
which will make it easier for them to spend.
Q21 Chairman: Now we are moving on.
Mr Straw: What are we moving on
to?
Chairman: Rendition.
Q22 Mr Illsley: Foreign Secretary,
we have seen positions changing slightly over the last few days.
We have seen the statement by Condoleezza Rice admitting that
the US have used rendition previously but denying any use of rendition
for the purposes of torture, and in a reply to Ming Campbell,
I think, yesterday it has been indicated that in the past there
have been requests to ourselves for rendition. This is despite
previous statements to the contrary that we were not aware of
any such requests in the past. Can you give a categorical statement
to this Committee now that this government is not involved in
any type of rendition, that we are not assisting, with the Americans,
in rendition of their suspects or their personnel and that we
are definitely not involved in any rendition of anyone for the
purposes of being taken to another country to a secret site, or
whatever, for the purposes of torture?
Mr Straw: First of all on your
last point, Eric, yes, I absolutely categorically can give you
that undertaking. On the wider issue, rendition is a term of art
which covers a variety of activities. At one end it could be used
to include the transfer of a suspect, which happened on two occasions
when I was Home Secretary, not Foreign Secretary, in 1998, as
I drew to Ming Campbell's attention, where the United States were
transferring an individual from a third country to the United
States to face trial. They had assured us that, although there
was not an extradition concerned, the transfer took place lawfully
with the agreement both of the host country—the original
country—and was consistent with the United States' law.
Since also I was satisfied about the potential treatment of the
suspects when they arrived at their destination, namely that they
we were going for trial in the United States, I agreed that transfer.
I do not remember it being called rendition, but it may have been.
There was also, as I said to Ming in answer to his question, another
case—we are still trying to pin down the records but it
is in the recollection of the officials concerned and also broadly
in my recollection that there was an application by the United
States for transfer from the United States to a third country.
I was not satisfied in that case that one could be guaranteed
about the potential treatment of the suspect and so I refused
the facilitation. Those three cases, there could possibly be a
fourth, and the Home Office are checking, all happened under the
Clinton administration. As I said in answer to the question from
Ming, and it was based on very thorough research both from Foreign
Office and Home Office files and other files, there is no record
whatsoever of any request for what is now called rendition from
the United States' government either to the United States or to
a third country which we in the UK government have received either
in respect of facilitation where the plane has landed or in respect
of over flights. I also say to you two other things. First of
all, had that happened through United Kingdom airspace or on United
Kingdom territory, I expect that we would have received a request
by the United States' government, because that has been their
consistent practice, as is evidenced by what happened in 1998.
The second thing I say is this. I wrote to Secretary Rice at the
end of November after the General Affairs Council and the general
discussion in the European Union raised concern about the reports
that had been received. She responded to that request with a very
detailed statement setting out the position of the United States
government, and that set out, amongst many other things: "The
United States has respected and will continue to respect the sovereignty
of our countries. The United States does not transport and has
not transported detainees from one country to another for the
purpose of interrogation using torture. The United States does
not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose
of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be
tortured." So I hope the result both of what I have said
in answer to Ming and what Secretary Rice has said to me in answer
to my enquiry should provide serious reassurance to those who
understandably have been worried about this in the reports.
Q23 Sandra Osborne: There is a great
deal of worry around this issue, as you know, and I appreciate
the officials have been carrying out quite substantial research
into exactly what has been happening, but I notice that some other
EU countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain have actually launched
investigations at a judicial level in relation to extraordinary
renditions. Do you not think there is a case for the UK to do
that, and does the EU itself have a responsibility to investigate
any breaches of human rights in its airspace or territory?
Mr Straw: I cannot speak for what
is happening in Germany or other countries, and they must make
their own judgments. There may have been calls for these, but
I am unaware of any such investigation. I do not think that there
is any case whatsoever for such an investigation here. Ming Campbell,
a very distinguished parliamentarian, asked me a question and
I did what it is my duty to do, which is to provide a thorough
comprehensive answer. That has been done. It has produced a nil
return. Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories
and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind
this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with
some dark forces in the United States, and also let me say, we
believe that Secretary Rice is lying, there simply is no truth
in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition
full stop, because we have not been, and so what on earth a judicial
inquiry would start to do I have no idea. I do not think it would
be justified. While we are on this point, Chairman, can I say
this? Some of the reports which are given credibility, including
one this morning on the Today programme, are in the realms of
the fantastic. There was a report this morning on the Today programme
suggesting that intelligence staff from the United Kingdom have
been involved in interrogation and maltreatment of detainees in
Greece. Normally when you get allegations, however fantastical,
we choose to neither confirm nor deny them because that is the
only way you can protect intelligence, but let me just say in
respect of those allegations that they are complete nonsense and
no United Kingdom officials have taken part in any alleged mistreatment
in Greece of any suspects whatsoever and we were not involved
in the arrest or detention of those particular suspects.
Q24 Richard Younger-Ross: You have
been very clear about official requests for rendition through
the United Kingdom. It does raise a question, of course, how they
managed to transfer the prisoners to Guanta"namo Bay in the
first place. Obviously the route is being used, not through the
UK in that that instance, but in terms of the requests, those
requests would only be for military or state flights, official
flights, US flights? Private flights can come and go. Have you
been made aware by any of your officials or any official from
any other department of any concerns or knowledge they have of
any private flights being used for rendition?
Mr Straw: No, I have not. Can
I say that part of the search of papers conducted at the Home
Office and the Foreign Office was not only for cases but also
for policy papers—I think that is reflected in the answer
which I gave—but those produced a nil return as well. In
any event, the permission is not contingent on the nature of the
aeroplane, it is contingent on the nature of the activity being
conducted either in the aeroplane or on the ground; so I do not
think the fact that it was a private flight is relevant. I have
no idea whether it was a private flight or a military flight or
a CIA flight that was involved in the 1998 transfers which I authorised
and it is not relevant. The question was the United States government
understood that in using our airspace and our territory they needed
our permission to effect a transfer, so they sought it.
Q25 Mr Purchase: Secretary of State,
three little subsets to this discussion. We have heard from a
number of bodies now who seem quite clear in their minds that
there are torture camps across Eastern Europe and perhaps elsewhere.
Is there any evidence that you have that such camps exist, has
information been passed to you which may be thought to have been
obtained by methods of torture, and, finally, if such information
was offered, in whatever circumstances, what would be the response
of the British government?
Mr Straw: On your first, I have
seen no evidence. I understand, obviously, the concerns that are
around, but, first of all, there are no secret prisons in the
United Kingdom. Fortunately, I think that is an allegation that
has not yet been made but unless I deny it it quite soon will
be; so you got it first, this denial of an allegation that is
yet to be made! But there are no secret prisons here. I have set
out the position so far as the United Kingdom government is concerned,
we are not responsible for third countries, but let me also make
it clear that Dr Rice in her letter to me set out the position—I
assume you have seen the letter and the statement, it is a very
detailed statement—and she says there that the United States
has respected and will continue to respect the sovereignty of
other countries. So, if the United States has entered into some
agreement for facilities with a third country, it would be with
the full knowledge and understanding of that country. If you ask
me whether they have, whether I have information that they have,
the answer to that question is, "No". Your other question
related to.
Q26 Mr Purchase: No evidence of torture
camps elsewhere?
Mr Straw: None whatever.
Q27 Mr Purchase: None whatever?
Mr Straw: On the undertakings
that Secretary Rice has given, nor do they exist as far as the
United States is concerned. I think if someone of the position
of Secretary Rice and her integrity makes statements like this
they ought to be assumed to be correct. On the issue of obtaining
evidence, intelligence, by torture, the position has been set
out a number of times, but let me repeat it. We are against the
use of torture. I am against the use of torture because it is
torture and it is wholly immoral. There is a subsidiary reason
why I am against the use of torture, which is that evidence obtained
under torture is much less likely to be reliable and that is why
British courts have always regarded evidence obtained in that
way, whether it is obtained under torture or what is called duress,
as unreliable, so we do not seek such evidence, we do not rely
on it. I have never had piece of paper produced before me where
on the rubric it says, "We believe this has been obtained
under torture." The other problem about torture is that those
who commit the torture deny it to themselves as much as they deny
it to other people, so to track it is very difficult, but we are
alive to those countries where we think malpractice of all kinds
is used and we seek to deal with it.
Q28 Mr Purchase: The third question,
if such information was offered?
Mr Straw: It comes to this. First
of all, I do not think it ever will be offered, because I think,
if you go through the list of countries where we and America and
other leading human rights NGOs believe that the mistreatment
of suspects takes place, I do not think you will find a single
one of those countries which says it does take place. All of us,
and this applies to everybody here in this room, I am quite sure,
if we were offered a piece of intelligence which, for example,
said there was going to be a terrorist outrage tomorrow and it
appeared to be credible, we would be duty bound to act on that
regardless of the provenance of it. Everybody understands that.
We have to do that. At the same time we have to take account of
our suspicions as to where it has come from and not ever either
to authorise the use of torture in the obtaining of intelligence
or to suggest that we are somehow complicit or accommodating to
this, because we are not, and I am not. I am against it.
Q29 Mr Keetch: Foreign Secretary,
can we be clear about your answer yesterday to my colleague, Sir
Ming Campbell, when you used the expression "UK territory
and airspace". Does that include British dependent territories
overseas?
Mr Straw: Diego Garcia.
Q30 Mr Keetch: Diego Garcia or RAF
Akrotiri in the southern base area of Cyprus?
Mr Straw: The search was related
to the UK mainland, all right, and the requests that I received
in 1998 related to the UK mainland. What I can say to you, and
I will need to make some more enquiries and come back to this
Committee about your question about Diego Garcia, not in relation
to any rendition but certainly in relation to other activities
based on Diego Garcia that United States government does seek
our permission, but I cannot give you a specific answer on that.[1]
Q31 Mr Keetch: Because your colleague
Iain Pearson told the Committee in answer to a question from me
two weeks ago that his definition when he sought advice from his
officials of UK territory and airspace did include Diego Garcia,
did include Akrotiri and, indeed, did include Gibraltar—I
threw that one in as well—so it would be very helpful if
we could have that direct view, particularly, obviously, on Diego
Garcia.
Mr Straw: Can I say that had the
search thrown up examples of requests, then, of course, I would
have reported them to the House via the answer to Ming Campbell,
but you asked me a very specific question about whether what I
had in mind there was UK mainland territory.
Q32 Mr Keetch: Perhaps we can clarify
that. You are absolutely certain that the accusations made in
The Times and elsewhere today that British MI6 agents
have been involved in the torture of 28 Pakistani originated detainees
in Greece, we can forget that as being complete nonsense, as you
said?
Mr Straw: Yes.
Q33 Mr Keetch: Excellent. Given that
and given the growing concerns—Mrs Osborne referred to the
inquiries in Canada, in Spain, in Italy—also given the fact
that even now in the House we have an All Party Parliamentary
Group set up on this subject, and I cannot speak for the Committee,
but if this Committee were to seek to investigate this issue of
extraordinary rendition, would you give us an assurance that any
officials in the FCO and any agency that are responsible to the
FCO would be prepared to give evidence to this Committee, if necessary
in private, so that we could once and for all allay the fears
that are quite clearly in parliament and elsewhere?
Mr Straw: Mr Keech, no, I would
not, and I think you understand very readily why not: because
that is getting into the territory of the Intelligence and Security
Committee. Am I ready for an appropriate committee of parliamentarians
to investigate such allegations? Yes. I know this is delicate
territory, but you have one role and the ISC has another.
Q34 Chairman: We will come back to
this matter.
Mr Straw: Let me say too, so far
as individuals who believe that they have suffered wrong at the
hands of intelligence or security agencies are concerned, they
have a statutory right to make a complaint to the relevant intelligence
services commissioner, who are senior judicial figures who will
then investigate, and that may be helpful to Mrs Osborne when
she was asking me about judicial inquiry and anybody who believes
they have been wronged, including these people who claim that
they were ill-treated by British intelligence in Greece and feel
that they can make that reference.
Q35 Chairman: But given that we have
signed the Geneva Convention, given that we have signed conventions
against torture in 1948, 1966, 1950 and 1984, you would confirm
that any British official employed by her Majesty's Government
in any sense involved in this practice or involved in the kind
of action we are talking about in terms of rendition might well
be in contradiction of the Geneva Convention and those other conventions
we have signed?
Mr Straw: Plainly torture is illegal,
complicity in torture is also illegal—it is illegal under
our law and under international law—and so, if anybody were
involved, they would be committing a criminal offence; but let
us just come back to the reality of the way in which our intelligence
and security agencies operate. They do not do this. I have been
responsible for one or other of the three intelligence and security
agency services over the last eight and a half years, Home Secretary,
Foreign Secretary, and I have never ever seen an allegation of
this kind, but if there are allegations, of course they would
be investigated, and there is appropriate parliamentary oversight
of the intelligence and security services as well.
Q36 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
you will be aware from the extensive coverage which this particular
allegation has had in a number of newspapers that a UK civil rights
lawyer, Mr Clive Stafford Smith, has produced a dossier of papers,
if I can use that word in this committee, on behalf of his client,
Mr Benyam Mohammed al-Habashi. You said to the Committee a moment
ago that the British government was in no way complicit in the
use of torture as far as any individual is concerned. You will
be aware that in these allegations Mr Habashi has alleged that
MI6 handed him over to the CIA, Mr Habashi describes an account
of someone he believes to be an MI6 officer and details the horror
of his torture. Mr Habashi says the officer told him: "I
will see what we can do with the Americans." "They gave
me a cup of tea with a lot sugar in it. He said, `Where you are
going you will need a lot of sugar'", and he went on to say
that he was interrogated for 18 months in a Moroccan prison, had
his penis cut with a scalpel; he also claims he was chained to
a wall for days, chained to the floor in a pitch dark cell in
Kabul and turned into a heroin addict. I should add that it is
also alleged that the Americans take the view, which I believe
he denies, that he is involved in some way in planning a dirty
bomb attack in America, which he denies. The question I want to
put to you is when you gave the Committee an assurance a moment
ago that the British government was in no way complicit in the
use of torture against people who are British citizens, does that
extend to not being complicit in the activities of the intelligence
agencies?
Mr Straw: Look, let me just say
this, and again I repeat the point. In normal circumstances, and
we cannot, nobody could in my position, give a running commentary
even on very extreme and totally untrue allegations, but in these
two cases, because of the very fevered interest in these cases
and the extent of the misinformation about them, I think it appropriate
to do so, but I also preface that by saying that if Mr Stafford
Smith wants to on behalf of his client, he is fully entitled to
ask the Intelligence Services Commission to investigate this and
to offer whatever evidence he has. The situation is this. Mr al-Habashi
was interviewed once by a member of the UK Security Service while
he was in detention in Karachi in 2002. The Security Service had
no role in his capture or in his transfer from Pakistan. The Intelligence
and Security Committee report into the handling of detainees by
UK intelligence personnel gave details of the guidance under which
such interviews were conducted, and the service officer did not
observe any abuse and no instances of abuse were reported to him
by Mr Habashi. I hope that is helpful.
Q37 Sir John Stanley: It is helpful.
It does not answer the question was Mr Habashi handed over deliberately
by the British intelligence services to the CIA?
Mr Straw: I have just read out,
Sir John, "The service had no role in his capture or transfer
from Pakistan."
Q38 Sir John Stanley: That is a different
question?
Mr Straw: I do not think it is;
that is the same question.
Q39 Sir John Stanley: Can you clarify
it: no role in his transfer to Pakistan?
Mr Straw: From Pakistan.
1 Ev 19 Back
|
