Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
91-99)
RT HON.
DAVID MILIBAND
MP, SIMON MANLEY
AND SUSAN
HYLAND
16 JUNE 2009
Q91 Chairman: Foreign Secretary,
welcome to this session of our inquiry on the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office's annual human rights report. We have two sessions with
you this week: one today on human rights, and one tomorrow on
Europe. We appreciate you giving up so much time this week for
our Committee. We received your letter that set out the overall
approach of the Government. We are grateful for that. We shall
probably refer to it and no doubt you will do so too in your answers
to our questions. May I begin by making a brief statement to make
it clear to the press and the public that there are some restrictions
on our questioning, which arise from the House's sub judice rule?
This rule prevents discussion in parliamentary proceedings of
cases that are active before the courts. The aim of the rule is
to safeguard the right to a fair trial. It is also important that
Parliament and the courts give mutual recognition to their respective
roles and do not interfere in each other's affairs. We have taken
advice from the House authorities on individual cases that are
currently active, and it is particularly important that nothing
should be said in this hearing, either by members of the Committee
or by witnesses, that might be deemed prejudicial in any forthcoming
court proceedings. I will intervene, if necessary, to ensure that
the sub judice rule is not broken. I am sure we will find that
that still leaves us plenty of scope for questions that are in
order in today's hearing, on those issues and related matters.
On the basis of that statement, Foreign Secretary, could you introduce
your colleagues to us?
David Miliband:
On my right is Simon Manley, the director of defence and strategic
threats, and on my left is Susan Hyland, the director of our human
rights, democracy and governance group.
Q92 Chairman: Thank you very much;
both of them are known to us. Can I ask you to begin by answering
a general question? How does the election of President Obama change
the context of the human rights debate and provide us with an
opportunity to adopt a new approach, to draw a line under what
happened in the recent past, and to develop a new framework for
fulfilling our responsibilities for the human rights of British
citizens and others overseas?
David Miliband: The election of
President Obama and his subsequent commitments change American
policy in quite fundamental ways, and that obviously has an impact
around the world. He has set a new framework, to use your phrase,
for American policy, and at the moment at least three important
reviews are under way that will deliver judgment on the future
of American policy. From our point of view, it is important that
our twin commitments—to safeguarding, on the one hand, the
rights of British citizens, and on the other, their security—have
a clear framework. There are four international treaties or conventions
to which we are party—the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights, the Geneva Conventions and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Convention against
Torture—which are relevant, while in our own domestic law
we now have the European Convention on Human Rights. Our legal
framework is clear; so is our ethical framework, which is shared
across the political parties of the House of Commons. There is
a shared commitment to have no truck with torture or with mistreatment
that is cruel, inhuman or degrading. As you say, I wrote to the
Committee yesterday, because it is important to welcome your report
as an opportunity for more informed public debate about the challenges
and dilemmas that we all face, and about how we meet them together.
Perhaps I might pick out a couple of points that, too often, are
not said but need to be. First, we have a more comprehensive intelligence
capability than almost any other country in the world. It is staffed
by people of enormous dedication and bravery, and with patriotism
and high ethics. In all my dealings with SIS, GCHQ and the Security
Service, I have been struck by the professionalism, in the broadest
sense of the word, that those people represent. They hold themselves
to high standards, of which the country would be proud. Secondly,
it is worth reiterating that there is no equivocation about the
Government's position on torture. We abhor torture; we will not
co-operate or collude with it; and, in line with our international
commitments, we are honour-bound not just to avoid wrongdoing
ourselves but to try to reduce, and if possible eliminate, the
use of cruel or inhuman treatment or torture around the world.
Thirdly, it is also important to be honest that we cannot defend
ourselves and the rights of British citizens in isolation. We
have to do that with other countries, some of whom have a different
legal framework from us and some of whom have a different set
of standards. Our role, as Ministers, agency heads and officials,
is to make sure, first, that we do not collude in torture or inhuman
mistreatment and, secondly, that we try to reduce the risk of
mistreatment in other countries. Finally, it is important to emphasise
that there is a comprehensive accountability framework for the
work done in this respect. The first responsibility is obviously
for Ministers to set the right policy and ethical framework, but
also for agency heads as they lead their organisations. There
is clear guidance for officials, which the ISC is now reviewing
in respect of intelligence agencies; there is also guidance for
Foreign Office officials. At the other end of the spectrum there
is the civil and criminal law, and it is a strength of our system
that any citizen can take legal action. As you mentioned, there
are a number of cases before the courts, and that means that there
are limits on what we can discuss publicly, but it is a strength
of our system that that route exists. In between the responsibility
of Ministers on the one hand and the law on the other, is parliamentary
accountability, part of which is represented by inquiries such
as yours, and part of which is represented by the Intelligence
and Security Committee, which is a creation of Parliament. I hope
that your inquiry can help us to ensure that all parts of the
accountability framework are working properly. Certainly in the
answers that we give today, we will try to be as helpful as possible
in explaining how we go about our business.
Q93 Chairman: Thank you, Foreign
Secretary. You have touched on a number of issues that we will
come on to, with specific questions about definitions of torture
and the practices of other countries. Just to place it on the
record, the Intelligence and Security Committee is appointed by
the Prime Minister, not by Parliament. There is a very important
point here about parliamentary accountability. We, as a Committee,
for several years have been pressing for a different system, so
that there can be true public parliamentary accountability, not
from an appointed Committee but from one chosen by Members of
the House of Commons. I think that the Government have a different
view on that, but I want to place on the record that that remains
our position.
David Miliband: I completely appreciate
and respect that. The only point that I was making was that the
ISC as it exists today is a creation of Parliament. It was created
in 1994. However, I totally respect that you want to reform it.
Q94 Chairman: It was appointed
by the Prime Minister, not by Parliament. Can I ask you to answer
some specific questions that follow on from the statement you
made to the House at the beginning of 2008 concerning the two
cases of rendition through Diego Garcia in 2002? Why are the Government
reluctant to release additional information into the public domain,
with the full details of those two cases?
David Miliband: What sort of information
were you thinking of?
Q95 Chairman: I am thinking of
the details of the individuals, the basis on which they were rendered
and where they were rendered to.
David Miliband: We have no confirmation
of their names, and that is why we have not put them into the
public domain.
Q96 Chairman: Thank you; that
is helpful. How would you respond to the allegations that the
two cases we are referring to do not represent the full extent
of the use of Diego Garcia as part of what has been called a rendition
circuit?
David Miliband: I have had assurances
from the highest levels of US Government—the former Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice—and at official level we have
had confirmation too that thorough searches of American records
produced the evidence of the two cases that you referred to. The
American Government then came to us promptly with that new evidence.
We have subsequently sent them details of allegations in respect
of the use of Diego Garcia and they have responded, as I have
reported to Parliament, with no further cases. I have had assurances,
as I say, at the highest level that there are no cases beyond
those two, and also that if there was any desire on the part of
the United States to use Diego Garcia for so-called extraordinary
rendition, or for any kind of rendition, the British Government
would be consulted.
Q97 Chairman: Are you satisfied
that the US Government have given full and proactive co-operation
to us on these matters?
David Miliband: It was certainly
proactive on the part of the US to notify us in the first place
of this new evidence that arose in February 2008. That did not
emerge because I had been in touch with them about a particular
case—they came to us. They were clearly proactive in that
instance. I think that they have subsequently looked hard at their
own systems, but they have been clear with me, in a way that I
have then reported in full to Parliament, about the limits of
their use of Diego Garcia. In those two cases there was no consultation
with the British Government. They recognise that. We believe that
to be essential, and they now recognise it to be essential as
well.
Q98 Chairman: You received assurances
from the former US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. We previously
had assurances on information which subsequently proved not to
be the case. How confident can we be that these assurances are
the full story?
David Miliband: We can be confident
that our closest intelligence and foreign policy ally seeks to
honour its trust with us in all respects. The degree of intelligence
co-operation that exists between the US and the UK is of a unique
standard and standing. It is based on mutual trust. It is not
only one-way traffic. The US Government understand the importance
of transparency and full openness with us. When the Secretary
of State of the United States gives you her word, you take it
very seriously.
Q99 Chairman: You reiterated that
the US undertook the rendition flights of 2002 without informing
the UK Government. Was that a breach of the agreement between
the UK and the US about the use of Diego Garcia?
David Miliband: In our view there
should be consultation. I think there was consultation about a
previous case—there were a couple of cases in the 1990s.
That is certainly the procedure that now exists.
|
