---

United Nations Convention Against Torture

My Lords, two themes have dominated this debate. First, the use of evidence obtained by torture, which is prohibited by the convention in all circumstances, whether in the form of confession or against third parties, and in non-criminal as well as in criminal proceedings. The Government must ensure that our law is brought into line with that principle if the Judicial Committee fails to do that next week. The distinction drawn by the Court of Appeal between SIAC and criminal proceedings is spurious, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, points out, and it would be alarming if any courts were entitled to ignore the convention. If the Government win the case of ““A”” before the House of Lords, that is not the end of the matter. The JCHR will be reporting on the implementation of the convention by the UK. The case of ““A”” itself could go to Strasbourg, and the Committee Against Torture would review the position. The proposals to combat terrorism would come under even more hostile scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. Secondly, there is the UK’s reliance on diplomatic assurances that terror suspects sent back to countries such as Algeria would not be tortured there, in the absence of effective post-return monitoring arrangements and appropriate due-process guarantees, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Williams. It is said the Government are considering a belt-and-braces approach of watering down the Human Rights Act, so that, whatever is said in Strasbourg about these matters, we can deport people to countries where they can be tortured. I would like to know from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether there is any intention to amend the Act. The right reverend Prelate has referred to the agreement with Jordan, that deportees we send back there should not be tortured,. This agreement provides for monitoring by the representative of an independent body to be agreed by the UK and Jordan. As he said, this has proved impossible in the case of Egypt, and it is unlikely that the task will be any easier in Jordan. If it does turn out to be possible to establish effective systems of monitoring in either country, however, there is still no effective remedy, as he pointed out, when the agreement is breached. All we can do is give six months’ notice of termination of the agreement, with no mechanism for enforcement. It would be a serious error of judgment, of which we have been given due warning, if Britain were to deport people to Algeria, or indeed to any of the other countries that have been mentioned, unless and until arrangements are made for monitoring the agreement that are watertight and subject, I would propose, to approval from the special rapporteur on torture, or some similar international authority. Finally, the Committee does not agree with the opinion we expressed when giving evidence, that the convention did not apply in full to territory where our forces were in de facto control, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. They say we should publish the result of all investigations into alleged misconduct by members of our forces in both countries. It is particularly important, since we are there ostensibly to restore the human rights of Iraqis and Afghans, that we act promptly, transparently and in full conformity with human rights instruments that we have signed, when any allegations of misconduct come to our attention.