Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench). It was answered on Tuesday, 15 November 2005.

Jordan and Libya

Question: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I have to assume that the very fact that memoranda of agreement have been negotiated with Jordan and Libya and other countries must mean that the Government have very genuine concerns about the possibility of torture of those returnees—genuine concerns because torture continues in both those countries. But those countries have signed the international torture convention among many other treaties that carry an absolute prohibition on torture, regardless of the circumstances. Therefore, why does the Minister believe that the bilateral memoranda of agreement will have greater force than the international treaties that carry the force of law?

Answer: My Lords, the necessity for the memoranda is to ensure that standards that we would regard as acceptable are sustained. The methodology described in them is sufficiently robust and contains all the essential elements that we need. The monitors will be chosen on a basis such that we are confident of their efficacy. When individuals fearing any return go to the British courts, I have no doubt that the courts will protect them from any threat of the death penalty or torture. Those are real-world commitments, made on a bilateral arrangement, and commitments that we are confident will be sustained because they have been made in serious negotiation in good faith.

Secondary information