HL Deb 29 June 2004 vol 663 cc130-3

3.1 p.m.

Lord Sheldon

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What representations they have made to the United States Government concerning the holding of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, we have long said that the British detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the UK. Following discussions with the US, we concluded that US military commissions would not provide sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards. We therefore asked that all British detainees be returned to the UK. Five returned in March. We continue to work to resolve the situation of the remaining four.

Lord Sheldon:

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply and welcome the statement of the Attorney-General that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are not being guaranteed a fair trial but that there should be a fair trial in accordance with international law and that there should be no compromise in principle. I note the statements from the Supreme Court, but the fact is that, after two years of incarceration, these prisoners are still being held in wholly unacceptable circumstances. For a country with ideals of liberty, which we have always admired and often copied and which have been an example to the whole world, is this not a matter which merits universal censure?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Government have consistently sought to resolve the position of the British detainees. Our position has been that the British detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. That has been the core of our argument. We expressed our reservations about the military commissions nearly a year ago and it was on that basis that five detainees were returned. We continue to press the US Government with respect to the other four.

Lord Thomas of Gresford:

My Lords, we sit within a stone's throw of the Star Chamber Court. Does the Attorney-General agree with Justice Stevens' opinion, voiced yesterday in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Padilla v Rumsfeld, that: At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society ... Unconstrained Executive detention for the purpose of investigating and preventing subversive activity is the hallmark of the Star Chamber"? Will the Government now support British citizens who are detained in Guantanamo with legal and financial assistance to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in the United States courts, as the United States Supreme Court said they could yesterday?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, we are obviously considering the implications of yesterday's judgment, and it is far too early for me to make any specific comments in relation to it.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford:

My Lords, has the noble Baroness received any reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross on whether it is satisfied with the access that it has to prisoners and, in particular, on whether it is satisfied on the issue of mail? Relatives are receiving letters only infrequently and they are very delayed and heavily censored.

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, I am aware that some concerns have been expressed by some detainees about the conditions in Guantanamo Bay, including the issue of mail. With regard to the International Committee of the Red Cross, I have not seen any specific reports, but I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate if any issues relate to the substance of his question.

Lord Howell of Guildford:

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the United States Supreme Court majority ruling yesterday guarantees a fair review but it does not necessarily guarantee a fair trial, which is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, understandably called for the other day? Can she explain the Government's attitude to bringing home the remaining four British detainees at Guantanamo? Earlier in the year, it seemed that we were reluctant to have them back. Has the policy now changed on that? If they do come back, what will be their status and what will be the charges against them, and will the evidence for those charges be admissible in British courts?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, knows that I shall not be able to respond to much of the detail of the questions that he has just asked me. Following the return of the five detainees, we agreed with the United States Government to continue discussions about the remaining four. The circumstances leading to the return of the five detainees were explained to Parliament at that time. We have had further discussions, which are continuing, but there has not yet been a resolution. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are looking at the implications of yesterday's judgment and it is far too soon for me to say what those implications might be.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick:

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the decision of the Supreme Court is particularly welcome at this time as it underlines the importance of the rule of law on both sides of the Atlantic?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, I think that I made it absolutely clear in the responses that I have already given that our position has always been that the detainees should be either tried fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. That has been at the centre of our approach and it will continue to be so.

Lord Bridges:

My Lords, will the Government be offering financial assistance to those detained so that their appeals can be heard expeditiously and efficiently?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, I am not sure to which appeals the noble Lord refers. He will know that a judicial review process is currently taking place in the United Kingdom, on which I am unable to comment, and, of course, we had the ruling yesterday on the cases heard in the US Supreme Court.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon:

My Lords—

Baroness Hayman:

My Lords, this side, I think. My noble friend will be aware that analogous, although not exactly parallel, concerns have been expressed about the detention regime under Part 4 of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act in this country. Will she ensure that, in the Government's review of those provisions, exactly the same scruples and concerns are taken into account in the regime that we operate for foreign prisoners in this country?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, my noble friend is talking about a very different situation.

Lord Roberts of Conwy:

My Lords, can the noble Baroness remind us what has happened to the five who have returned to this country? Are they now facing trial?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, they have returned and, so far as I recall, they are not facing trial. If I am wrong, I shall of course write to the noble Lord.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon:

My Lords, while I applaud the efforts of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the Government to return British detainees to this country, the Question does not relate simply to United Kingdom detainees; it refers to all those who are detained in very severe circumstances at Guantanamo Bay. Are the Government making strenuous efforts to ensure that the United States obeys the international conventions and the rule of law under which prisoners should not be held in dire circumstances for very long periods without facing charge and proper judicial process?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, I think that I have made our position clear, but perhaps I should repeat it for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. We have consistently sought to resolve the position of the British detainees. If noble Lords look at the many statements which have been made, they will see that no other country has visited its detainees as frequently or made such strenuous efforts on their behalf. Again, I stress that our position has been that our detainees should either be treated fairly in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. When we expressed our reservations over the military commissions last year, it was on the basis that the United States Government suspended all legal proceedings against two of the British detainees at our request.

Lord King of Bridgwater:

My Lords, is it not clear, even for those who wish the United States well in the very difficult task that it has undertaken, that we have the greatest concern about the present situation? It has become a public relations disaster for the United States, and it is urgent and important that it makes its case more clearly to the world. In that connection, are the Government making any representations about the fact that the United States is not likely to have an ambassador in this country for the following six months?

Baroness Amos:

My Lords, obviously the length of time that the United States takes to place an ambassador is very much a matter for it. The noble Lord will know, as I have said in response to many questions, that we have been strenuous in the representations we have made to the United States Government with regard to the position of the British detainees.