To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take regarding those prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay who return to the United Kingdom.

On hearing President Obama’s decision to close the interrogation centre at Guantanamo, I was pleased that that courageous and difficult step had been taken. It is of course against the principles of our own legal system for a citizen to be indefinitely imprisoned without charge. It is specifically contrary to the provisions of our own Magna Carta. The President's action was thus in accordance with our own precedents and tradition and his courage in making a clean break with the previous American practice was to be welcomed. I sense that that was also the reaction of many of our fellow citizens.

At the same time, I can see that the consequences might lead to some awkward decisions for our own authorities. It would only be just for a British citizen released from Guantanamo who wished to return here to be entitled to do so, accompanied, if he wished, by his wife and children. But other cases might be less straightforward. What if a released prisoner not of British nationality, who has previously had the right to reside here, which right had expired meanwhile, wished to return as a resident? I believe that there has been a case of that kind. We could no doubt ask the US authorities what they knew about this person’s political activities in the United States and why he had been imprisoned. I have little doubt that they would try to help, but while we should not be unsympathetic to his request, we could not be said to be under a particular obligation to him.

Then there are other applicants who may have had no previous close connection with our country, but who may have concluded that this would be a desirable place for them to live for an indefinite period. Here, too, we should feel under no obligation to admit such persons but we could ask the American authorities for an account of the reasons leading to their imprisonment.

My interest has been that an early debate would enable us to be enlightened about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to such requests, which could be of considerable interest to public opinion in this country generally. To my knowledge, no such statement has yet been made. Some several weeks have elapsed since I gave notice of this Question for Short Debate, since it seemed rather a large topic for an ordinary parliamentary Question, which means that it has lost a certain amount of its topicality.

Meanwhile, there has been a fresh development. According to an article in the Guardian on 16 June, an important meeting was held by European Union Governments in Brussels the previous day to discuss these issues. The newspaper stated that the meeting cleared the hurdles for up to 50 Guantanamo returnees to be accommodated in EU countries. It also stated that the United States had agreed to pay the European countries that accommodated them. Each country would decide whether to take in the former detainees, with a deadline in January next. According to the newspaper, officials were said to remark that they were,

“not far away from a breakthrough”.

Meanwhile, I read some breaking news in another newspaper article recently that the United States Government had reached an agreement with Bermuda for four prisoners from Guantanamo to be transferred to Bermuda financed by a payment from the United States Government. Were our own Government asked about that? Did the US Government consult us before making an agreement with a British territory, and if not, why not?

It would be appropriate for the Government to make a formal statement about their attitude to these developments, which are of considerable interest and some concern to our citizens. Could they also cover the awkward fact that, whatever we decide ourselves, other European Union states may be inclined to accept these people who, having established themselves within the EU, would then be free to travel to this country as EU residents? That might have awkward and unforeseen consequences.

My task today was not to criticise the Government but suggest to them that this is a subject of some considerable importance to the nation as a whole, and it would be helpful if, at an early date, a full authoritative statement could be made, possibly in Parliament, for the information of the country at large.

I take the opportunity of the gap to make a practical point on the Question raised so clearly and succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. When I was the Chief Inspector of Prisons, I went to the special centre in Belmarsh where IRA terrorists were held. I was extremely concerned about the conditions in which they were held, but also about the staff who had to look after them.

Noble Lords will remember that a number of Iraqis were put in Belmarsh without trial for a considerable time. Again, their conditions and treatment had not been pre-planned. Fortunately, there was an extremely able governor in Belmarsh who realised that this was not a normal imprisonment, of either a sentenced or unsentenced prisoner, but for an indefinite period. Again, there is the question of the staff who have to look after them.

Obviously, this is a hypothetical question. We do not know if, or how many, people from Guantanamo may be returned to the United Kingdom. We do not know for how long they may have to be detained. My question to the Minister is simple, although I acknowledge that it is possibly more for the Ministry of Justice than the Home Office. Have the Government taken steps to identify the sort of conditions in which people like this ought to be held? To pitch them into a normal or high-security prison would be wholly inappropriate, bearing in mind where they have come from.

Secondly, have the Government identified the special staffing measures required for psychiatric and other treatments from the time that they have been in that place? Have they taken steps to identify the sort of staff who might be suitable? Not all of them are. Have they taken steps to make certain that there is briefing and training for them before they go to where the prisoners are sent with the resources needed to look after them while they are there?

We on this side of the Committee have always been particularly opposed to the Guantanamo experiment and the extent to which extra-legal imprisonment outside the Geneva conventions has been part of the US anti-terrorist operation. We are not here today to discuss the whole of extraordinary rendition, but I simply mark the fact that there are wider issues that will continue to exercise us.

I have recently read yet further information coming out of the United States that suggests that Diego Garcia has been used as part of the extraordinary rendition programme. I gather that a large number of prisoners is still being held in Bagram, not all from Afghanistan. The question of what happens to them remains active. How far members of the British Government or intelligence agencies were aware of what was going on, or may indeed have colluded in questioning some of these prisoners, are questions that we must leave at the moment to lie on the table but which we have to come back to.

Today, we are concerned with what happens to British citizens and residents as they are released from Guantanamo and whether Her Majesty’s Government will be playing an active role in taking non-British citizens in order to help the Obama Administration in closing Guantanamo—something which, in principle, we strongly support. However, we recognise that the practicalities are complex. We hope that the Minister can tell us the position on British citizens and residents who remain in Guantanamo. Progress has, we know, been made. What arrangements will be made for them as they return to Britain?

I should like, however, to ask in more detail about the situation with Bermuda and, potentially, other British Overseas Territories, and how far we will share in taking non-British citizens. In a BBC report some days ago, a senior US official was quoted as having told the BBC that,

“it was a deliberate decision not to consult London on the resettlement, after other countries came under pressure from China not to accept Uighurs”.

It is unclear from reports that I have read whether Her Majesty's Government preferred not to know what was happening, or were kept entirely out of the loop and were not informed about what was happening. I hope that the Minister may be able to throw at least a shadowy light on the distinction. Is he aware of any other consultation between the United States and other British Overseas Territories which might be willing to take such ex-detainees? Might there have been some agreement between Bermuda and the United States dating from the Cold War period which covered particular arrangements between them, as people have suggested to me, or was it simply a one-off?

On non-British citizens, the European Union has, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, remarked, agreed in principle to help the Obama Administration close Guantanamo. Italy, I understand, has already agreed to take three of them; I do not know whether the Minister yet has information on whether other Governments have decided that they will share in this process and, if so, how many they will take. Do Her Majesty's Government consider that it should be part of our responsibility to help close Guantanamo and this deeply unfortunate episode in American foreign policy? If so, will we be willing to take people who would have to be kept in detention after they arrive in the United Kingdom? Whether we allow them to be released when they arrive here or recognise that they may also have to be detained—and, if so, under what authority—are more complicated issues. I hope that that does not raise too many questions for the Minister.

I thank my noble friend Lord Bridges for introducing this timely debate. It is rather a pity that more Members of our House were not here to join in.

As my noble friend said, we on these Benches have long called for the closure of the facility at Guantanamo Bay on grounds that I think we all share: that if we, the coalition countries, seek to respond to terrorism in ways that undermine shared values, the outcome will be to achieve precisely the objectives that the terrorists seek. It is therefore extremely good news that the facility is going to be closed, although I think that we all recognise that it poses some real challenges, including the requirement not to return detainees who are assessed as posing no security threat to countries where they might as a result of their return be tortured or face other degrading treatment, and, in countries where they may be received, that they do not pose a security threat, which is one of the main concerns of those of us in this Room today. The net result of that, as we are beginning to see, is that the closure process is going take perhaps a little longer than the US Administration might have wished.

Does the Minister know how many detainees the US Government have now assessed as being capable of release? Reports have consistently indicated that something in the order of 220 detainees are still being held at the facility, which is still quite a large number, of whom 50 have been cleared for release without trial. Has he any further update on how many are going to face some kind of process and how many are to be released? Is the UK going to take any of them? I understand there are 50 of them, but there may be more. Have we had further requests from the US Administration?

I turn to those who are coming back to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the US/EU statement of 15 June on the closure of Guantanamo Bay. It contains two slightly contradictory sentences. It states:

“the primary responsibility for closing Guantanamo and finding residence for the former detainees rests with the US”.

It goes on to state,

“we also recall the request by the Government of the United States to assist it in finding residence for some of those persons cleared for release ... whom it will not prosecute, and who for compelling reasons cannot return to their countries of origin”.

It goes on:

“Decisions on the reception of former detainees and the determination of their legal status falls within the sole responsibility and competence of a receiving EU Member State”.

That slightly suggests that in general we are prepared to take people, but in particular and in practice, that may be very difficult. Does the Minister have information about how many of our partners in the EU are likely to be taking them and how does the UK compare with them?

The UK has already accepted 14 detainees over the years, the most recent being Mr Binyam Mohamed, whom I shall return to in a minute. The Foreign Office has said that it regards that as “already a significant contribution”, implying that we are not willing to take many, if any, more. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that situation.

The safety of the British public is of paramount concern. If detainees are coming back to this country, and particularly if there are to be more of them, can the Government explain the criteria they are adopting for admission and how they will ensure that these individuals do not represent a security threat? In the case of Mr Binyam Mohamed, can the Minister update us on his status? Will he remain resident in the UK? If so, on what basis? Is he judged to be a security threat? If so, what would be the circumstances of his residence here and how, if necessary, will the general public be protected? The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, are relevant in this particular case and more generally. We need to know. It places a burden on our security services if these people have to be detained and if they are not, but are a threat, they are a danger to the public. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but it would be good to have some clarity.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other speakers referred to the detainees who went to Bermuda. I am as curious as they are about the circumstances under which this transaction took place. It is a great oddity that when two sovereign states are close allies, the sovereign power in Bermuda appears to have been uninformed and kept out of the picture. I do not regard that as a friendly act. It seems improper conduct on the part of the United States. I hope a protest has been delivered.

As a practical matter, what is the status of these Chinese Uighurs? Are they considered to be a security risk? Will they have freedom of movement? Are they expected to integrate into Bermudan society in the long term? Are they at liberty to leave? There are some interesting questions, and if this experiment goes wrong, we, as the sovereign power, will be landed with the problem.

I have another question about the EU/US statement to which Her Majesty’s Government have signed up. It says that,

“as a result of EU rules relating to an area without controls at the internal borders, a decision of one Member State to accept”,

a detainee and the determination of their legal status falls within the sole responsibility and competence of the receiving EU state. That is as may be, but as my noble friend has said, people can travel around inside the EU. I would be grateful to know what internal arrangements between member states will be made to ensure that the Schengen arrangements—the UK is certainly not a full member but it has a relationship—do not become a means of evading the necessary security precautions.

In the UK, our security services are still facing allegations about complicity in torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. That is not the object of today's discussion in detail, but I would be grateful for any update that the Minister can give us. It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary continues to refuse to publish the guidance from the Government. I know that it is old guidance and the new guidance that the Government have promised will be published when it is consolidated and reviewed, but when will that be? I also hope that the Government will be willing to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee’s further report on alleged complicity of the agencies in torture and other degrading treatment, which we know was submitted to the Prime Minister in March. I say that not out of idle curiosity because it is important that we do what we can to preserve the good name of the country. Our intelligence services do such extraordinarily important work on our behalf that we must not let this odour of suspicion about their standards and behaviour linger. It is an important part of having clarity and confidence—clarity about the facts and confidence in the agencies of government.

Finally, on the question of Mr Binyam Mohamed, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an update on where the Attorney-General has got to in her investigation and whether there is any indication of when her investigations are likely to be concluded. There is a key lesson to be drawn from the operation of the facility at Guantanamo. As I said at the beginning, let us not in future respond to the terrorist threat in ways that defeat the purposes of our own society.

It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify some of the issues that have been raised in the debate because the object of debates of this kind are on the one hand to know what the security situation is, and on the other to know that we are securing ourselves in ways that are consistent with our liberties.

I thank noble Lords for what has been a useful discussion. As was mentioned by a couple of speakers, it is a shame that more noble Lords were not involved, because it is useful to go into some of these areas. They are important.

As a backdrop, before we go into detail, it is important for us to remember what a monumental event 11 September was to the United States, which did not lose 60,000 people in the Blitz in London. Something like this had never happened before. It is the largest ever loss of life—just under 3,000 were killed—on US soil as a result of a hostile attack. It was a shattering moment for the US and for the world. There was a realisation that we faced a new kind of threat. It is fair to say that the world has changed as a result.

We all know how the United States responded and I do not think that it would be sensible to rehash all those arguments here. However, on one specific point, the United Kingdom has long held that the indefinite detention of detainees is unacceptable and that the Guantanamo Bay—I am never quite sure of its pronunciation, but I am sure that it is not “Gitmo”, as the Americans seem to call it—detention facility should be closed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said, one of the problems of Guantanamo Bay is that it has added to our problem and our risk. It has been a cause of radicalisation and further extremism. It was not very clever in any sense. It was wrong that it happened, but it was also damaging and extremely dangerous.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned, not just the people of Britain but also the Government welcomed President Obama’s executive orders of 22 January covering the closure of Guantanamo, interrogation techniques and detention standards. That was a brave and absolutely correct thing to do. These moves demonstrate a real commitment to addressing the challenges of violent extremism in a manner consistent with upholding human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. All of us would applaud that.

However, we have not just said that we welcome this commitment to close Guantanamo; we have backed it up with action. We should be proud of that in this nation. We have already taken back into the UK 14 former detainees, nine UK nationals and five individuals who were previously lawfully resident in the country. That is more than any other European country; I will come to numbers, as far as we currently know them, of other European countries a little later. We have also requested the release of one further lawful resident, Mr Shaker Aamer. That is going on at the moment.

We continue to discuss with the United States Government how best we can work with them and our European partners to see the closure of Guantanamo, and we will share our experience in accepting the transfer of former detainees. Again, I will come on to the checks we do on them later. Certainly, it is not our current intention that we should take any more. We have done rather well in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether we were taking any more. As I say, we are negotiating on one at the moment, but we have no intention of going any further.

A number of speakers raised the issue of Bermuda. We were unaware that that was going to happen until it did. By accepting these detainees from the US Government, Bermuda overstepped our constitutional agreements with it in handling foreign and security policy. It was not a proper thing to do. It was a mistake. We have been clear with the Government of Bermuda that their actions were unacceptable and are looking at the operation of the general entrustment. However, we must deal responsibly with the situation as it stands. We are looking at ways to ensure that these men are dealt with in a properly humanitarian way while protecting the security of the United Kingdom. They do not have travel documents, so they cannot actually get here. We are considering all options and are discussing them with the United States and the Government of Bermuda. That discussion is still ongoing, so I cannot really go into any more detail. I am particularly interested because I am going on holiday to Bermuda in July, so I hope that they are reasonably safe chaps. It would be awful for the Minister responsible for counterterrorism and security to be blown up in a hotel sitting alongside four Uighurs, but I am sure that they are not that dangerous and that it is being handled.

On other British Overseas Territories accepting detainees, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned, that is a good question. As I hope we have made clear, we have taken a lot ourselves and have been in touch with all these other Governments in the region and elsewhere who are now fully aware of the need to discuss any such action with us; I think they were before. We have discussed it with them under the terms of their individual entrustments. They have confirmed that they are not in similar discussions with the United States.

It was mentioned that the EU justice and home affairs Ministers agreed a framework in early June for accepting into the European Union those individuals cleared for release but who, for compelling reasons, cannot return to their countries of origin. As I understand it, France has so far accepted one individual and Italy will accept three. I do not know how many Ireland will be taking, but Spain is taking four or five, Portugal two or three and Hungary one or two. Those are the latest figures I have and I know no further details. However, something is happening. I was at the JHA conference where this was discussed. One area of concern was the ability of individuals returned to the EU to travel within the Union. It was a key consideration in that debate. People in the Schengen area were particularly concerned, but our borders are a little tauter and tighter. There were discussions about how security concerns would be discussed between states, how people would be monitored and how relevant information would be shared between member states about these people and their movements.

President Obama has committed to closing Guantanamo Bay within the year. We would encourage all nations to do their part, as Britain has, to help the President fulfil his commitment, but we recognise the real difficulties in this. We must not kid ourselves; Guantanamo Bay contains some dangerous individuals. Noble Lords will be aware of statistics issued by the US Department of Defense on the number of individuals who have been released from Guantanamo Bay who have returned to fight coalition troops—there is one man who is heavily involved in killing our people in Afghanistan—or to engage in terrorist activities elsewhere in the world. Of course, a number of them are not a risk, which is where the difficulty lies. On top of this, some of the men in the camp come from countries where they would be at risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment on their return, which adds to the problems.

People coming back to this country have had a very thorough check by our agencies to look at their details and ensure that they are not a major risk. If they were, the prime role of the Government is to protect our citizens, so we would have to ensure that they were locked up.

That brings us on to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He touched on the slightly hypothetical question of whether we had taken steps to identify the conditions in which a difficult, long-term person would be held and the special staffing necessary. None of the people we have taken are anywhere near that category. Some terrorists we have put in prison are inside for quite long periods. The noble Lord raised important issues about psychological profiling and having a proper psychologist looking at them. As far as I am aware, the MoJ does that to an extent. If I am wrong in that, I will get back in writing. It is a valid issue, but it is hypothetical with these people because we do not intend to take any such person.

These difficulties mirror our experience in trying to disrupt terrorist activities. When we cannot prosecute or safely deport people, what we do with them is a real issue. It is one of the things we are constantly wrestling with and we have debated it on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions.

We are doing our bit to close Guantanamo. Our first priority and overriding responsibility is the safety of the British public, which must come first. We gave full consideration to national security, and we have made sure that those who come back here are not a risk to the British public. Assisting the US to reduce the number of individuals at Guantanamo Bay helps it in its efforts to close it. It has real difficulties, for example, in the negotiations with Palau. It is getting quite desperate in some areas. We need to do everything we can. I cannot go into specific details on individuals.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked about statements. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have updated Parliament on developments when appropriate. Indeed, they reported on the EU discussions. I do not think they could produce much more than that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, asked about the number of individuals still in Guantanamo. The latest figures I have—I think it is a moveable feast—show that 244 individuals remain detained. All the cases are being reviewed on a rolling basis and, so far, only 30 have been cleared for release—not the figure of 50 that was given. As I said, this is a moving figure and will be changing all the time.

We touched on torture and allegations of UK complicity. I would first endorse what the noble Baroness said about our agencies. We are extremely lucky with the quality of the people in them—as well as in the police force, SO15 and across the board. We should always recognise that when we discuss this matter, we must not let any of them be fall guys for some error that might have been made in how instructions were passed out. We condemn torture wholeheartedly; it is not acceptable. I cannot talk about ongoing cases involving the police. They were passed to the Attorney-General and the police are now dealing with them.

The Prime Minister has said that we will produce a new code, in which the ISC will be deeply involved. It remains our wish to consolidate the review with the ISC. It is not clear when we will be able to publish it, but we are moving forward as quickly as we can. I agree that that is very important, because our agents and people in the field are at risk. I know, for example, that one of our allies’ agents was killed when carrying out an interview. They are involved with really dangerous things. The alleged torture of Mr Mohamed is the subject of a police investigation which I cannot talk about.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about extraordinary rendition, which we condemn. He mentioned Diego Garcia. It is a fact of record that a couple of flights went through there. We were totally unaware of them; the Americans apologised profusely. It was quite appalling that it should have happened, but I believe much more in mistake than conspiracy. It is amazing how often mistakes happen in huge, complex operations.

The issue of rendition is made all the more difficult because the Americans talk of a “war on terror”—I do not like that term—the theatre for which is world wide. That immediately makes the perception of rendition different from the way in which we would look at it. These are difficult, complex issues.

As we made clear when we published the CONTEST strategy in March, the Government’s approach to counterterrorism is based fundamentally on a set of guiding principles, foremost among which is respect for human rights. If lose that, we do the terrorists’ job for them. As a nation, we believe that Guantanamo Bay should be closed—I have described how it helps the terrorists—but we cannot just stand on the sidelines and criticise it, which I do not think we have done. We have stated our position; we have not shirked our responsibilities. We have taken 14 detainees and are trying to get a further one. This is a good thing; it strengthens our national security, notwithstanding some of the other issues that then come to light. The message that we send to the rest of the world is that the closure of Guantanamo Bay is fundamental to our concept of how one should behave, which I hope will help our huge prevent strategy for radicalisation and recruitment. I know that we would all agree that promoting human rights, democracy, good governance and the rule of law is the best guarantee of our security. That is the way forward.

Perhaps I may be allowed a few concluding words. I thank all who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord West, for his thoughtful and thorough reply. There is a tendency, which I hope we have avoided, to adopt a tone of high moralistic disapproval of what has happened. We should remember, after all, that we have done something not too dissimilar in our own past, for example, in transporting people to Australia in conditions of terrible inhumanity. Only a few of them ever came back—they built Australia as a result, so perhaps some good came out of that. I trust that no one will feel tempted to repeat this particular experiment, which is very difficult to bring off for a democratic and law-abiding country.

It is extraordinary that one should try to find a sort of terra nullius, where there is no legal jurisdiction and which you pinched or borrowed from somebody else called Cuba. That is repugnant to our own attitudes, and it is rather astonishing that our American friends should have done it. It is courageous of President Obama to have drawn it to an end. If we can help him bring it to a conclusion, I am sure that we are doing the right thing. I thank the Minister for replying so carefully to the points that we have raised.