HR 183: Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

 

 

I am looking forward to my appearance before the Committee on Tuesday. It's an important opportunity, not only to discuss the work of the FCO in promoting and defending human rights, as set out in our Annual Report, but also to consider the particular issues around counter-terrorism, which your own inquiry is seeking to address. I understand why the Committee does not want me to take up time with an initial presentation of the Government's position on Tuesday. This letter therefore sets out for you and the public some key points of our approach.

 

I welcome greater public debate about how we exercise two of the most fundamental responsibilities of Government - to defend the rights upon which our freedom ultimately depends and to protect the security and safety of our citizens. As the National Security Strategy makes clear, we see these as mutually reinforcing. But that does not mean there are not difficult judgements and hard choices, and it is better for these to be understood.

 

Some things cannot be discussed publicly: for example, cases that are sub judice, and operational matters in respect of our intelligence and security agencies. But in recent months there has been a good deal of debate and public interest in our position on the detention and treatment of terrorism suspects. In part this has been prompted by the Judicial Review into the case of Binyam Mohamed as well as by developments in the US and elsewhere. If this can be channelled into an informed discussion of the right approach to difficult judgements, then the country will benefit.

 

The starting point is that the threat that we face is real and ongoing. British citizens going about their daily lives in this country, and abroad, have been subject to murderous attacks in recent years. So the stakes in counter terrorism work are high.

 

Fortunately, this country has a more comprehensive intelligence capability than almost any other country in the world. It is an essential part of our ability to defend our interests and secure our safety. It is vital that we maintain and, where possible, enhance the operational effectiveness of our Agencies. They are a unique - and much prized - national asset. And their staff perform a vital role in defending our country's national security.

 

The Government has been absolutely clear that the UK stands firmly against torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. There is strong cross-party support for this. It is a fundamental principle guiding our approach and that of those who work to protect us. That is not just a question of our obligations under domestic and international law - including under the Human Rights Act and the UN Convention Against Torture. It is also a question of our values as a nation.

 

It is for this reason that this Government, and the Foreign Office in particular, have over the last twelve years sought to take a lead on international efforts to eradicate torture, including through support to international mechanisms against torture, and capacity building work overseas to foster a law enforcement environment in which torture is simply not considered an option.

 

This is also the approach and ethos set out in our counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST. As that strategy makes clear, our work to reduce the threat of terrorism is based on a set of core principles and values including respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Government has been absolutely clear that the UK abhors torture and that is an inviolable principle underpinning our approach.

 

When detainees are in our custody, we can be sure of how they are treated, and ensure we meet our obligations and standards. When they are not, we cannot have the same degree of assurance. Yet we cannot act in isolation in order to protect British citizens. UK terror networks nearly always have overseas links which must be investigated if attacks in the UK are to be stopped. We therefore need to work in cooperation with partners all over the world. Some other countries have different legal obligations - and different standards - to our own in the way they detain people and treat those they have detained. That cannot stop us from working with them, where we can, in order to protect this country's national security, but it does mean we have to work hard to ensure we do not cooperate or collude in torture, and to seek to reduce and eradicate it.

 

In enabling the detention of individuals who pose a threat to our national security, in passing questions to them, or participating in interviews of them, we must seek to minimise the risk that the individual in question is mistreated by the detaining authority. Enormous effort, within the Agencies and Armed Forces, goes into carefully assessing the risks in each case. Ministers consider carefully each case that is put to them. As the ISC has reported, operations have been blocked on the grounds that the risk of mistreatment is too high. Equally, it is not always possible to eradicate the risk of mistreatment. A judgement needs to be made.

 

Our guidance to Agency staff (which will be reviewed by the Intelligence and Security Committee, and is in the process of being consolidated) makes clear the careful and considered way we go about making the choices that we face. That guidance reflects the best thinking and advice that we are able to provide to those who act in the name of the United Kingdom. Through this guidance, the Agencies, and the Government more generally, set parameters for the conduct of their officers. The guidance is designed to ensure that anyone following it is acting within the law. In accordance with our obligations under the Convention Against Torture we keep it under review. The steps outlined by the Prime Minister on 18 March 2009, including on publication of this guidance, are part of the process of setting out for the British public the choices we face and the careful, considered way we all go about making them.

 

Accountability is a vital part of our system. But by definition the work of the Agencies requires a different set of checks and balances than the work of any other part of government. The first responsibility is for Ministers and Agency Heads to uphold our law and our values. The law is available to provide recourse to those who feel their rights have been abused. As you know, 12 civil claims are currently in the court system, including the Binyam Mohammed case. It is right too that the Intelligence and Security Committee should have an important role. The Committee is a creation of Parliament, not the Executive, with the avowed purpose of squaring the circle between secrecy and accountability. The Committee - and the Intelligence and Interception Commissioners - are an invaluable part of our constitutional checks and balances. As the High Court recently said, the ISC "is a very significant means of democratic accountability". These bodies have the access to the sensitive intelligence material they need to discharge their duties fully and effectively. But to ensure operational effectiveness is also properly protected, the individuals involved are notified under the Official Secrets Act and their official reports are published with appropriate redactions, though each and every redaction is explained and debated in detail with the reports' authors before publication.

 

Together with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which investigates complaints by individuals about the Agencies' conduct towards them, these bodies provide comprehensive oversight of the Agencies. That is their role. However, I also want to emphasize that, although there are good reasons for the limits on what we can say in public on some of these issues, I welcome your Committee's interest in them. You play an essential role in scrutinizing Government and stimulating public debate.

 

I look forward to discussing these issues with you and other members of the Committee.

 

 

Rt Hon David Miliband MP

 

15 June 2009