Letter to the Chairman from Andrew Tyrie
MP, Chairman All Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition
THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESPONSE TO
THE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
HUMAN RIGHTS
ANNUAL REPORT
2007
I am writing to you about the Government's response
to your Committee's Human Rights Annual Report 2007, in advance
of the Westminster Hall Debate on Thursday 18 December.
I am concerned that this response did not adequately
address the concerns that your Committee raised. I am also concerned
that the Government's action on rendition to date appears to contradict
statements made by the Foreign Secretary on this issue. I very
much hope that your Committee will feel able to raise these points
with the Government.
In summary, the key points are:
— the Foreign Secretary's stated intention
in submitting a list of alleged rendition flights to the US was
to "identify whether rendition of an individual had in
fact occurred".[143]
However, the renewed assurances provided by the US apply only
to rendition flights that landed in the UK. Rendition flights
through UK airspace with a detainee onboard, but that did not
land, are specifically excluded.
— Your Committee asked the Government
to raise questions with the US Administration about `rendition
circuit' flights, and to carry out an exhaustive analysis of current
US interrogation techniques. The Government's refusal to take
these simple steps appears unacceptable.
— Your Committee asked the Government
to seek full consular access in all cases where it is aware of
mono- or dual-national British citizens being detained by the
Pakistani authorities, and to provide more information on known
cases. The Government's ambiguous responses, and its apparent
inability to determine when and where such detentions have occurred,
are of concern.
I set out these points in more detail below.
RENDITION
The action taken and the investigations carried
out by the Government appear not to have been thorough enough
to give the public confidence that no further US rendition flights
have used UK airports or airspace. The renewed assurances provided
by the US do not fully address the rendition of detainees through
UK airspace. In addition, despite my persistent requests and the
conclusions of your Committee,[144]
the US was not asked any questions about flights through the UK
on the way to or from a rendition.
The renewed assurances provided by the US, as
set out by the Foreign Secretary, are that: "there have
been no other instances in which US intelligence flights landed
in the United Kingdom, our overseas territories, or the Crown
dependencies, with a detainee on board since 11 September 2001".[145]
These assurances specifically exclude rendition flights through
UK airspace with a detainee onboard that did not land at a UK
airport. The Foreign Secretary had said, in a letter to you of
18 March 2008, that he would seek assurances about such flights:
"our purpose here is to identify whether rendition (ie
of an individual) through UK territory or airspace in fact occurred".
His failure to do so appears unacceptable.
The Government's response sets out that "it
would be unreasonable and impractical to check every aircraft
transiting UK airspace on the basis that it may have been, at
some point in the past, and without UK knowledge, involved in
a possible unlawful operation".[146]
This is not the request that has been made. It would be straightforward
for the Government to seek assurances that none of the flights
on the list it submitted to the US were on the way to, or from,
rendition operations at the time of their transit through UK airspace.
THE US AND
TORTURE
Your Committee suggested that the Government
conduct an analysis of US interrogation techniques. The Government
has refused to do this. The Government says in its response that
"in some cases it will be clear that a certain technique
constitutes torture..."[147].
The House of Lords has expressed the view that various techniques
authorised by the US Administration would be held to constitute
torture.[148]
An analysis of interrogation techniques could be conducted, and
where definitive pronouncements on a specific technique depend
on the circumstances of the case, the Government should state
this fact in its analysis.
UK OFFICIALS AND
TORTURE
As you know, following the publication of your
Human Rights Annual Report 2007 Dr Kim Howells wrote to me on
11 August 2008 to correct information he had provided in relation
to British nationals detained in Pakistan on suspicion of terrorism
offences. I attach the letter here. He revised the number of those
detained from six to eight, but added the caveat that it will
always be difficult to give precise numbers on this issue. Of
the two additional cases, one alleged mistreatment, and press
reports made allegations of mistreatment in relation to the other.
The difficulty with which the Foreign Office appears able to get
information about dual-nationals detained in Pakistan, and elsewhere,
is of concern.
It is still not clear that the Government will
seek full consular access in all cases where it is aware of mono
or dual-national British citizens being detained by the Pakistani
authorities, as recommended by your Committee.[149]
Clearly, it is not always easy for people in detention in Pakistan
to allege mistreatment to British officials, consular or otherwise,
or to take their case to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, as
the Government suggests.[150]
I note Dr Howells' comment that he can "neither
confirm nor deny whether UK officials met any of these eight individuals
to discuss non-consular matters", given both in the Response
to your Committee, and in his letter of 11 August 2008 to me.
This differs from the original Answer he provided on 4 June 2008,
in which he stated "British officials sought and were
granted access to the two mono-British nationals".
I am placing this letter in the public domain.
17 December 2008
143 Government Response to the Foreign Affairs Committee
Annual Report on Human Rights 2007, paragraph 23. Back
144
"We conclude that the Government has a moral and legal
obligation to ensure that flights that enter UK airspace or land
at UK airports are not part of the `rendition circuit', even if
they do not have a detainee onboard during the time they are in
UK territory", Foreign Affairs Committee, Human
Rights Annual Report 2007, paragraph 47. Back
145
Terrorist Suspects (Renditions) Statement, 3 July 2008, Column
58WS. Back
146
Government Response to the Foreign Affairs Committee Annual Report
on Human Rights 2007, paragraph 23. Back
147
Government Response to the Foreign Affairs Committee Annual Report
on Human Rights 2007, paragraph 26. Back
148
A (FC) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department,
[2005] UKHL 71, para 53 (Lord Bingham of Cornhill). Discussed
in Professor Crawford's Legal Opinion on Extraordinary Rendition,
para 12, enclosed with previous correspondence, and available
at www.extraordinaryrendition.org Back
149
Foreign Affairs Committee, Human Rights Annual Report 2007, paragraph
62. See Government Response to the Foreign Affairs Committee Annual
Report on Human Rights 2007, paragraph 31. Back
150
Government Response to the Foreign Affairs Committee Annual Report
on Human Rights 2007, paragraphs 28 & 29. Back
| 
