---

United Nations Convention Against Torture

My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office put it very well in their annual report on human rights this year. It said:"““Torture is one of the worst human rights abuses. As torture is outlawed under general international law as well as specific human rights treaties, when governments condone it, they risk losing their legitimacy and provoking terrorism””." Torture brutalises those who practice it, morally corrupts those who control or permit it, and contaminates those who directly or indirectly condone it. Furthermore, as has been argued, the unreliability of so-called information gained by torture has been repeatedly demonstrated. Civilisation is fragile. When it is endangered all our efforts should be redoubled to protect the values and conduct which are its substance. The struggle is about hearts and minds. We must refuse to be diverted. Those who claim to be on our side but practice torture are not just wrong but guilty of treachery. They aid and abet the forces we seek to overcome. They give succour to those who want to win new recruits for extremist action. To prevail, civilisation demands a constant commitment to principles based upon respect for the dignity and integrity of people everywhere. Torture is itself terrorism. Terrorism will never be defeated by the deployment of terrorism in any form. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, is embarking on an enquiry into UK performance against the requirements of the United Nations Convention. This will have to cover two things, amongst others. First, the returning of people to countries where there is a danger of their being tortured. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, has pointed out, Article 3 of the UN Convention is quite specific."““No State Party shall expel, return . . . or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture””." The Government have been doing a great deal to secure formal agreements with some likely destination countries that anybody returned will not be tortured. As has been argued, the question arises as to why such an agreement is necessary. It is, of course, because the danger exists. But if it does, and torture is endemic to the system of such countries, how much confidence can there be that any agreement will be honoured? It is not at all reassuring to read in the text of the agreement with Jordan that,"““A returned person who is arrested or detained will be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power in order that the lawfulness of his detention may be decided””." What precisely, in the event, might ““other officer”” mean? Secondly, there is the use of material in the proceedings of SIAC, or indeed elsewhere, of information which had been secured under torture. The Government clearly have a responsibility to establish, beyond doubt, whether torture has been used. SIAC has accepted that as long as no British agent has been involved it can be used, even if it has to be regarded with caution. The appeal court has upheld this position. The argument seems to rest on the principle that UNCAT has not yet been incorporated into British law; and also that SIAC is claimed to be more in the realm of civil than criminal law. The matter is now before the Law Lords, and their ruling will be very important in this respect. Meanwhile, Article 15 of UNCAT remains clear."““Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made””." At a time when the paramount importance of the international rule of law could not be more obvious, it is surely essential that not just the letter but the spirit of conventions to which we are a party should be observed. Otherwise, the credibility of international law is seriously damaged, and that is counterproductive in the battle for hearts and minds. If we do not intend to abide by conventions or treaties, we should not enter into them. There is a great deal at stake for the future of the global community. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, is warmly to be thanked for having brought this critically significant issue before the House today. We must be vigilant, as self-generating erosion of the values that we seek to defend could all too easily become a dangerous avalanche.