All 1 Debates between Lord Reid of Cardowan and Baroness Manningham-Buller

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Reid of Cardowan and Baroness Manningham-Buller
Wednesday 21st November 2012

(12 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan
- Hansard - -

Perhaps I may respond and then I will give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. I was not trying to parody or even respond to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, with the exception of her incorrect statement that there is no one from Labour here and her reference to Pakistan. The rest of it actually applied to the generality of the arguments that I have heard since I came in. I have made my position known on torture, but I have also made my position known on the obligations of government to protect the rights of the British citizen, including the basic one of the right to life.

Baroness Manningham-Buller Portrait Baroness Manningham-Buller
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Lord, Lord Strasburger, should speak first.

Lord Strasburger Portrait Lord Strasburger
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Can the noble Lord tell the House about a single occasion when a British court has released into the public domain any information that has been detrimental to the country’s national security? Can he name a single one?

--- Later in debate ---
Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan
- Hansard - -

The explanation for a no is always more substantial than a straight no.

Baroness Manningham-Buller Portrait Baroness Manningham-Buller
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I feel I have to rise to speak because of the presumption of guilt suggested by some people on the part of my organisation in the past. I should say first that torture is a crime in our law and in international law. It is morally wrong, ethically wrong and it is never justified—even when, as the Americans would claim, you get the truth from it. That is irrelevant. It is not what a civilised country does and it is illegal. For my colleagues to be accused of it is to accuse us of a crime.

I can now talk about the Binyam Mohamed case. We interviewed him in Pakistan in 2002, where he was in American custody. Later that year we sent questions to the Americans to put to him. There were two things that we did not know in 2002. We did not know that our closest intelligence ally was resorting to waterboarding; that is, torturing people. We did not know that in 2002. Additionally, we did not know that Binyam Mohamed had been rendited by the Americans to Morocco. Had we known that, we would have been more careful about the questions we had put, as I said to the parliamentary committee in 2006 and as it was recorded in its report. Certainly we regretted that.

Because torture is a crime, the person who interviewed Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan was extensively investigated by the police. A report went to the Crown Prosecution Service and it was decided that there was no case to answer. If any of my colleagues had been involved in criminality, the criminal courts—we are not talking about civil proceedings here—the police and the Crown Prosecution Service would have been involved. We are absolutely subject to the criminal law, and so we should be. But I find it pretty difficult to accept a presumption of guilt without it being proved in a court.

I shall put a caveat on that, picking up the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I cannot talk about matters to do with Libya because those are the subject of current civil proceedings, as I understand it, and criminal investigations. It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.