TORTURE: ALLEGATION AGAINST THE UK (Hansard, 20 May 1980)

§ Lord GARDINER
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, before I answer this Question, I should explain that I am taking the part of my noble and versatile friend Lord Trefgarne, who has been summoned away. Her Majesty's Government have at no time been found guilty of torture by the European Court of Human Rights.

§ Lord GARDINER
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. With reference to the statement made by the Government on 23rd April in this House, as reported at column 811 of the Official Report, that— this country has been found guilty of practising torture", are we to understand from the noble and learned Lord's reply that the Government 729 now withdraw that allegation, so that it is not damaging to the good reputation of our country?

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I was unaware of the statement to which the noble and learned Lord refers, but I think that the noble and learned Lord will remember that what I said in my Answer is in fact the case. The noble and learned Lord may remember that in December 1971, or early 1972, he was very intimately concerned in the Parker Committee. I am sure that he will remember that his minority report was accepted immediately by the Government of the day, long before the Human Rights Commission reported on the particular matters. In that particular case— which is the only one of which I have personal or individual knowledge— the commission certainly did not find us guilty of torture.

§ Lord GARDINER
My Lords, while I fully accept everything that the noble and learned Lord has said, may I again ask whether that means that the Government are now withdrawing their previous statement that we had been convicted of torture?

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I was unaware of the previous statement; otherwise, I would be able to answer more unequivocally. However, my answer that we have never been found guilty of torture is I believe the correct answer in the case. It is the answer that I have been given, and I believe it to be true.

§ Lord AVEBURY
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the statement in question was made during the debate on defence sales by the Minister who was speaking from the Front Bench opposite, and that he made the statement in order to deflect a question that I put to him concerning the Government's policy on the sale of arms to regimes which practised torture, and to Argentina in particular? The noble Lord then on the Front Bench opposite said that it all depends on what you mean by torture, and that, for instance, this country had been convicted of torture in the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore is it not vitally important that this misstatement by the Minister should be 730 properly corrected by the person who made it so that there cannot be any confusion between the practices which were followed in Northern Ireland— reprehensible though they may be— and the appalling atrocities inflicted on the citizens of Argentina by the regime which they are unfortunate enough to have in that country?

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, as I have no previous knowledge of this particular matter and no notice of it, I do not think that I can go further than I have gone. My original Answer is the correct one.

§ Lord LEONARD
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that in view of the talks that are to take place between Mr. Haughey and the Prime Minister, we should leave matters of this nature in abeyance for the moment?

§ The LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for putting the Question so that I could give an unequivocal reply. I am sure that that was a very valuable contribution to the House. As a matter of fact I was not briefed on the other matters that have been raised by way of supplementary questions, and I can only apologise to the House for not knowing more about this matter.