§ David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab)I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this subject. It is not my argument that the four British citizens held by the United States at Guantanamo bay are necessarily innocent of terrorism—I am in no position to know. We do know, however, that the five who were released, who had been held for some time by the United States, have not been charged for any offence since returning here. I accept that that, in itself, does not mean that the four in question are innocent of any involvement in terrorism. The point is that if the four United Kingdom citizens are to be tried in the United States, the legal process should be in accordance with the recognised law and international standards of democratic countries. Our Foreign Office Ministers and Law Officers should continue to pursue that in talks with the US authorities.
I share the concern that if any or all four of the detainees are charged, they will, as things stand, be tried before a military commission. Apparently, that method of trying people in America applies only to non-US citizens. For instance, members of the US armed services have the right to appeal against a sentence imposed by a court martial to an independent civilian court. Those tried before a military commission, including the British citizens, have no such right of appeal. What happens in such cases is that any guilty verdict is reviewed by a panel of military officers. Once a decision of guilt has been established, such findings go to the Defence Secretary and either he or the President of the United States gives the final confirmation of the decision. There is no right to any kind of independent court.
Moreover, if the four were to be found not guilty, would they automatically be released and allowed to come out of detention? If they are tried before a military commission and found not guilty, will they be released and allowed to leave the United States? It will be interesting to hear the answer to that.
After representations made by the British Government, will the four will be able to choose their own lawyers? That is an important point. The right to choose one's lawyer is a feature of any democratic society. In the United States, for example, those from the armed services who are charged and appear before a court martial have some choice. If the four detainees are to have their own lawyers, what about payment? I understand that it would be necessary for defendants in those circumstances to pay lawyers who, certainly in the United States, do not come cheap. What will happen if they are free to choose their own lawyers, but are not in the position to fund such services?
There is another question about lawyers. Lawyers who appear before the military commission need security clearance and difficulties could arise in such circumstances. If security clearance is very restrictive, would the lawyers acting for the four—if they are allowed to have lawyers of their own choosing?be so restricted that they would not have the information that defence lawyers normally have?
Following the representations made by the British Government, I know that the four are not going to be sentenced to death even if they are found guilty. That is 305WH a useful fact to know, especially for those involved. Nevertheless, if they were to be found guilty by a military commission in the absence of a death sentence, the sentence could be very heavy indeed. That is all the more reason why the defence lawyers should have the necessary information to do the very best for their clients.
Will the proceedings take place in public or in camera, or will they be split between the two? It is important that the whole proceedings are in public. I would have thought that all parties would have similar thoughts on the matter. My hon. Friend the Minister may remember that when he first made a statement on the situation, before anyone had been released, there was a great deal of criticism from all parties on the way in which the United States intended to act. As we know, five have now been released, but there is much sensitivity on the matter, and rightly so.
I hope that I take the acute threat of international terrorism no less seriously than anyone else. My loathing of acts of terror is second to none. Indeed, for 30 years I took every opportunity to condemn the terrorists. In Birmingham, not very far from my constituency, the IRA committed a terrible act of terror in which some 21 people were murdered in November 1974. That is apart from all the other acts of terror that the IRA committed in Northern Ireland and England. While condemning such acts, as well as those carried out by its loyalist counterparts, I sometimes wonder whether those in the United States—what is sometimes described as the Irish lobby—took the same view of the seriousness of terrorism as we did. When it comes to terrorism, my point is clear: we require no lessons from anyone on the subject. We loathe terrorism and we loathe the threat to our people.
We know where the Prime Minister is at the moment. He is rightly paying tribute to the memory of those who were slaughtered in Madrid a fortnight ago. Nevertheless, international opinion, not least in the Arab world, needs to be persuaded that if the four, or any of the other detainees of various nationalities, are found guilty, the legal process will be just and be seen to be so. I am afraid that the proposed way to try those people, whether they are innocent or guilty, is not likely to achieve that aim, or to come anywhere near it. More safeguards are necessary.
If the four were to be charged—they have not been at the moment—it would be far better if they appeared as defendants in a proper court of law in the United States. They should have lawyers of their own choosing and the defence counsel should have all the facilities that defence counsels normally have in the United States and other democracies. If, at the end of it all, they were found guilty, there would be the feeling in this country and probably in the wider world that the due processes of justice had been undertaken. As it stands, what is being proposed is not satisfactory. I hope that Ministers and the Law Officers in this country do their utmost to persuade the United States of the seriousness of the matter.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, 306WH North (David Winnick) for raising this subject and for giving me an opportunity to reiterate the Government's position on the British detainees at Guantanamo bay. In doing so, I want to emphasise two points. First, we have done more than any other Government to look after the interests of our citizens detained at Guantanamo bay and we will continue to do so in respect of the remaining four prisoners.
Secondly, although I accept that many aspects of the treatment of terrorist suspects at Guantanamo bay have been far from satisfactory, we must remain mindful of the unique circumstances in which the detentions arose. I am sure that my hon. Friend is mindful of that. The threat posed by al-Qaeda is unprecedented. In responding to it, Governments have had the difficult task of balancing the demands of civil liberties against the threat posed by an enemy that is extremely cunning, ruthless and utterly without scruple. That has given rise to some difficult dilemmas. I know that my hon. Friend, who, while being a strong upholder of civil liberties, is second to no one, as he says, in his detestation of terrorism, will appreciate those difficulties.
My hon. Friend asked whether the detainees would have access to their own civilian lawyers. We understand that they will, but that those lawyers must come from a list of civilian lawyers approved by the US Department of Defence. He asked who would pay and whether it would be the British Government. My understanding is that the US will not pay for the appointment of a civilian lawyer, but that a military lawyer will be provided in each case. We are considering what advice we can provide on finding qualified civilian lawyers. It would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to provide financial assistance to pay for the lawyers as that is not done in the many other cases in which British nationals are prosecuted abroad. It is not our practice to fund legal assistance for any British nationals facing trial overseas. However, we will be able to provide assistance with finding qualified lawyers.
Let me return to my first point. No Government have done more for their citizens detained at Guantanamo bay than the British Government, both during the detention of the nine men and in seeking to bring about their return. We have been in frequent and regular contact with the United States authorities concerning the British detainees. From the outset we sought to ensure their welfare and actively encouraged the United States Government to resolve their position. British officials have visited Guantanamo bay seven times. We have kept the families and Parliament informed of the detainees' circumstances and of other related developments.
In July 2003, two of the British detainees were designated by the United States authorities as eligible to stand trial by military commission. The commission had been established to prosecute the detainees. The British Government made it clear from the outset that we had concerns about the military commission process and consequently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Attorney-General to discuss with the United States authorities how the detainees, if prosecuted, could be assured of fair trials that met international standards. In parallel to that, the Prime Minister talked to President Bush and the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter many times with his opposite number, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Extensive discussions 307WH have been held between British and United States Government lawyers and officials. Those discussions have involved many complex issues of law and security, which both Governments have had to consider carefully.
Although the discussions have made significant progress, the view of the Attorney-General was that the military commission, as constituted, would not provide the type of process that we would afford to British nationals. We have been attempting to ensure that the legal process will respect the human rights of the detainees, including the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, established by law. As we know, five of the detainees have been released and have returned home. As for the remaining four detainees, we and the United States authorities are continuing to discuss a range of security matters and other issues. As a result of our talks, US legal procedures against Mr. Abbasi and Mr. Begg were suspended in July and, as my hon. Friend remarks, the United States said that the men would not be subject to the death penalty, and that remains the case.
Our overall position remains that the detainees should either be tried in accordance with international standards or returned to the United Kingdom. That is the basis on which we are working and on which we shall continue to work.
§ David Winnick:Is it the wish of the British Government that, given the opportunity offered in respect of the United States authorities, the detainees could be returned and that the authorities in Britain would decide, as they did with the five detainees, whether any charges should be made? Would that not be the Government's first preference? The detainees are British citizens and we were involved in Afghanistan, so it is not a separate matter from the United States. If the detainees are to be tried in the United States, will a military commission definitely be involved? Will the United States relent on that? Will my hon. Friend deal with the matter of an appeal if the verdict is guilty? If the detainees are found not guilty and acquitted, will they be released from detention and allowed to leave the country?
§ Mr. Mullin:On my hon. Friend's first point, our position remains the one that I just enunciated, which is that the detainees should either be tried in accordance with international standards in the United States or returned to the United Kingdom. As for whether they would he prosecuted were they to be returned to the United Kingdom, that is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, not the Government. I am sorry, but I have forgotten his third point.
§ David Winnick:Is it the wish of the Government that the remaining detainees should be returned to the United Kingdom as the other five have been and that the authorities here should decide whether any charges are to be made? If they are returned and charges are made against them, and it was only right and proper that they should be charged, there would be no question about the legal processes involved. We are happy with the legal processes in our country.
§ Mr. Mullin:I dealt with that. If the detainees are to be tried in the United States, which remains a strong possibility, they should be tried in accordance with international standards. Were they to be returned to the United Kingdom—in the event either of their acquittal or because they were not to be tried in the United States—the matter of whether they would be prosecuted here would be for the police and the CPS to decide. It is not one on which I can comment.
I now recall that my hon. Friend's third point was whether the commission is still the most likely form of trial. At present, the answer is yes, but the precise terms on which the trial would take place under a military commission have yet to be determined. Discussions about that are continuing.
Let me deal with the extraordinary circumstances in which the detentions arose. The attacks on 11 September were the most appalling terrorist atrocity that the world had ever seen. More than 3,000 people, including 67 British citizens, were killed. In response to those attacks, as my hon. Friend knows, a coalition of countries came together to launch a military campaign against al-Qaeda and its Taliban supporters to remove them from their strongholds in Afghanistan.
In those operations, thousands of individuals believed to be al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, or their supporters, were detained by coalition forces. The vast majority were released, but those who were deemed to pose a substantial risk of returning to conflict—about 800 people so far—were sent by the United States to Guantanamo bay to be detained and questioned about their knowledge of al-Qaeda activities. As a result, valuable information has been gained that has helped to protect the international community from further terrorist attacks.
§ David Winnick:What happened on 11 September was a terrible tragedy. I was in the United States on a private visit that week, so I know how the American people reacted. I spoke to a gathering on the evening of 11 September in which I made it clear that the United Kingdom would stand by the United States. However, is it not a matter of some interest that the five who were detained were held for a long time—two years—yet when they returned to the UK, no charge was made against them?
§ Mr. Mullin:I have said that the Government regard many aspects of the Guantanamo bay experience to be unsatisfactory. I outlined the detailed discussions that we have held at all levels with the United States. So far, they have resulted in five of our citizens being returned and then released, and discussions about the remaining four are ongoing.
It is easy to criticise Guantanamo bay, and we are critical of some aspects of it. It is difficult to maintain a balance between a country's security and the protection of its civil liberties in the struggle against the menace of international terrorism, of which the recent horror in Madrid is only the latest example. That is a balance that we must strike. The Home Secretary has been open about that. He published a discussion paper entitled "Counter-Terrorism Powers: Reconciling Security and Liberty in an Open Society". I commend that to hon. Members, because it sets out some of the dilemmas that we are addressing. 309WH I encourage colleagues to consider the issues surrounding Guantanamo bay in that light, and to contribute to the debate on how we should address the various dilemmas that arise from the need to protect the security of our citizens while, at the same time, safeguarding fundamental freedoms that we all rightly cherish.
§ Sitting suspended.