HL Deb 15 October 2003 vol 653 cc936-9

2.52 p.m.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they consider that the current plans for judicial procedures at Guantanamo Bay will permit fair trials of those detained there.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)

My Lords, no. That is why, over the past few months, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has vigorously expressed to the United States Administration our strong reservations about the military commission's procedures. Our objective has been to ensure that if any British nationals are detained at Guantanamo Bay and prosecuted, a fair trial takes place in accordance with generally recognised principles. Discussions continue.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, and I know of the great efforts that are being made. However, I remind the House that the detainees have now been in small mesh cells for nearly two years, that they have no access to families, friends or defence lawyers, and that, by any international standards of human rights, this has become a totally unacceptable scandal.

In view of the strong statements made by the Attorney-General to the International Bar Association in which he pointed out—I thought very eloquently—that one objective of terrorists was to undermine democratic governments’ commitments to the rule of law and human rights, can the noble Baroness suggest at the very highest level of government, by which I mean the Prime Minister, that representations should be made to the President of the United States that this is no example of the way that democracies should treat even the poorest and most disadvantaged of our country's citizens?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her acknowledgement of the great efforts that have been made. Indeed, there have been five rounds of talks on the issue of trying to secure a fair trial. I hope that the noble Baroness will also acknowledge that there have been six visits from officials at the Foreign Office to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I assure her that, in addition to those contacts, numerous contacts have been made between British and United States officials on this matter.

I am sure the noble Baroness will remember that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised these issues with the President of the United States. Therefore, these matters have already been put on the agenda as matters of concern at the highest levels in both governments.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale

My Lords, in the event that a fair trial is secured and it leads to an acquittal, can my noble friend confirm that the prisoners will be immediately released?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty and I am sure that my noble friend will understand the point that I am about to make. The discussions and negotiations are continuing. On 22nd July, following his initial round of talks with the United States, my noble and learned friend issued a statement in which he made a number of points about progress thus far. However, in relation to the specific point raised by my noble friend, at present so much is under discussion that nothing can be agreed in addition to the position on 22nd July until everything is agreed. But I assure him that his point is also very much in our minds.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for, to my knowledge, the very strenuous efforts that he has made to do his best in extremely difficult circumstances. Is there a process—and, if so, can the noble Baroness say what it is—to distinguish between a terrorist and a prisoner of war?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his acknowledgement of the strenuous efforts being made by my noble and learned friend. He is, indeed, being robust, energetic and vigorous in pursuing these discussions. The noble Lord asked about a process to distinguish between the two cases that he cited. The position regarding the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is virtually unprecedented and very difficult, apart from the obvious parameters of international law and what amounts to a fair trial in international law.

The noble Lord goes back to questions raised in your Lordships’ House on previous occasions about defining a "terrorist". I believe we can all readily acknowledge that the types of issue being discussed in relation to the detainees—not only the British detainees but also all detainees at Guantanamo Bay— are enormously serious. They relate not only to terrorism but to the activities associated with terrorism. Those issues must be taken seriously, but that point in no way undermines the fundamental point about securing a fair trial.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, is not the problem that the rules published by the United States Government for trial by military commission are so plainly incompatible with international human rights law that either they must be disapplied and a special arrangement made for trial by proper courts in the United States or the detainees must be repatriated and tried here? Perhaps I may give the Minister a couple of examples of the ways in which those rules are incompatible.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I shall do so with the leave of the House. They involve secret trials. They are entirely under the control of the President of the United States and there is no effective remedy—

Baroness Amos

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to put his question.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, does the Minister agree that those are the kinds of ingredients that make the rules entirely incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the other conventions and covenants?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, the noble Lord was very kind to try to help the House with his examples. But, of course, it was because of those examples and others that I answered the Question of the noble Baroness, his Leader, in the way that I did by saying that the United Kingdom Government do not consider that the current plans will permit fair trials. That is why my noble and learned friend has spent so much time trying to negotiate to a point where a fair trial might be possible.

I say to the noble Lord that there is an ambiguity in the noble Baroness's Question because it relates to current plans for judicial procedures. Those current plans might have referred to the initial proposals for the trial but, to a certain extent, they have been superseded by the statement that my noble and learned friend issued on 22nd July, which indicated that he had already made progress in eight important respects. That is not sufficient and therefore my answer to the fundamental point would still have been "no", otherwise my noble and learned friend would not be pursuing the discussions so vigorously.

Lord Dubs

My Lords, I join the acknowledgement of the very robust position that the British Government have taken. I am well aware that they find this issue as difficult as we all do. In the various points being negotiated with the United States Government, has the question of independent observers at these trials been raised?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

Yes, my Lords, that has been raised, as has the possible access to public scrutiny by the press and media. Indeed, all those matters are under discussion. The question of access by the press and media was dealt with by my noble and learned friend in his statement on 22nd July in which he stated that, subject to any necessary security restrictions, the trials of the first two individuals who have been designated will be open and the media present.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, is not the right answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that the American officials have given a new status or label to the prisoners at Guantanamo; namely, that they are not prisoners of war or suspected criminals but illegal combatants? That is the label they thought up to reflect the new nature of the war on terrorism which, as the noble Baroness rightly said, is an "unprecedented" situation.

Is not the message that we should be giving to our American friends that this status should be given official form and speedily? While we all accept that lawyers in every country tend to move very slowly, is it not the two years in limbo in which these people have been left which really is intolerable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said? That must now be ended and the new status defined if we are in a new situation.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

Yes, my Lords; I have a great deal of sympathy with that view. The question of the legal limbo in which all these detainees have been left was pinpointed by the International Red Cross in its criticisms. The noble Lord talks of a new status. Moving towards an internationally recognised new status would be enormously helped if there were an internationally recognised fair trial that went with such status. It is rather difficult to argue for one without the other.