---

United Nations Convention Against Torture

My Lords, perhaps I may not accept an intervention; I have only 10 minutes. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, raised the issue of extraordinary rendition, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. I have no knowledge—and I have asked—that we have ever been involved in either rendition of the sort to which the noble Baroness referred, or extraordinary rendition. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, raised the issue of other countries refuelling in this country and then going on and something happening on the plane. We do not know of that. We have signed the Chicago convention that allows refuelling stops without a requirement for the country to say what is going on in that particular plane. I cannot give an assurance as to what is going on, but that is the nature of the aviation convention we have signed. I cannot take the matter any further than that. We share the views of the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Park, of the government of Zimbabwe. Their human rights record is appalling, and there are Zimbabweans who need, and must receive, protection through the asylum process. As we have regularly made clear, we assess each case on its individual merits. All those who meet the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Geneva Convention are granted asylum. In addition, those whose removal would be a breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights will also be granted protection. The issue of how failed asylum seekers are treated on return to Zimbabwe was considered in depth by the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal last week. We do not know what the answer is, but we have a court system that looks at precisely the issues the noble Baroness has rightly raised. We must depend on our court system to address the issues and reach fair conclusions. I have not dealt with every issue, but I have dealt with the main ones. On the point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, my understanding is that signing the state immunity treaty has not changed the position on torture, but I recognise that he takes a different view on it. I also fully accept his point that there should be a proper debate before ratification occurs. He rightly says that I am not in a position to give him any guarantee about when such a debate might take place, but I support his view that it should be debated. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to the fact that in 1709 by the passage of the Treason Act the United Kingdom—albeit Scotland—became the first European state to abolish torture as a legal means of criminal inquiry. We are as opposed to the use of torture now as our enlightened and pioneering forebears were then. Our condemnation of the use of torture is unequivocal and our pursuit of the worldwide abolition of torture remains steadfast, as does our support for the United Nations and the Convention against Torture. In difficult times and in the most challenging circumstances we will continue to uphold the example that the United Kingdom has set to the rest of the world for nearly 300 years.