---

United Nations Convention Against Torture

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and congratulate her on initiating the debate. I hope that the noble Baroness feels its high quality fully justifies her in taking the initiative. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, encapsulated the issue most succinctly. He said that the problem is not that the United Kingdom Government practised torture or would ever entertain its practice on their territory or that over which they had control. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, pointed out, torture has been repugnant to the British tradition for centuries—thank heaven. The problem is rather, as the noble and learned Lord went on to say, whether the Government are turning their back on torture practised by others. Three main illustrations of the circumstances in which the Government might be doing just that have emerged from today’s debate. The first was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but elaborated on by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. It is the acceptance in English legal procedure, in the context of SIAC hearings, of evidence from foreign intelligence sources which has been obtained by torture, provided that there had been no participation by a British agent. That matter will soon come before their Lordships’ House, but I respectfully share the view expressed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in no uncertain terms. One hopes that such a practice will cease either by a decision of their Lordships’ House or by the Government taking a different view on the matter. The second issue was graphically illustrated by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth; that concerns the circumstances in which asylum seekers are sent back to countries which are suspected of having, or are known to have, torture, among other methods, on their investigative agendas. I have been astonished that the Government have continued to allow the deportation of Zimbabwean nationals to Zimbabwe. There have, of course, been nationals of other countries similarly deported in circumstances where all the public evidence seemed to suggest a serious danger that they would be tortured. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to comment on that. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the deportation of nationals, properly considered undesirable, on security-related lines. The dilemma was skilfully illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and others, such as the right reverend Prelate, have discussed the real dilemma the Government face in addressing this matter. Let us not disguise the fact that the Government have a serious problem here. We all earnestly hope that arrangements can be made which will fulfil the criteria suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the right reverend Prelate; but if they cannot be, we must face up to the fact that under Article 3 of the convention we have obligations which are unqualified. Perhaps ultimately the best way of solving these problems is to have a definition of terrorism in our own country which will enable us to prosecute people in those circumstances and reduce the desirability of deportation to a minimum.