COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 22 July 1988)

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63, and perhaps at the same time I may speak to Amendments Nos. 182 to 186 en bloc and also Amendments 364, 386, 393 and 427. The amendments will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the United Nations convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1984. The United Kingdom Government played an active role in the process of drafting the convention and we co-sponsored the resolution permitting its adoption by the General Assembly. We were among the first nations to sign the convention, which we did on 15th March 1985.
I am delighted that the Bill presents an opportunity to legislate on those important aspects of the convention which require primary legislation, so that we can proceed to ratification. It is especially fortunate that we can take this step in 1988, which marks the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights on 10th December 1988. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich, and their colleagues in another place, are as keen as we are to see this legislation in place so that we can ratify the convention as quickly as possible.
Perhaps I may quickly run through the main features of the amendments. The heart of the matter is the new clause contained in Amendment No. 182. It creates a new offence of torture which is committed by a public official or a person acting in an official capacity or with the consent or acquiescence of such 1600 a person. It consists in the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, which may be either physical or mental pain or suffering. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.
The courts will have jurisdiction to try a person on a charge of torture wherever in the world the offence is committed and whatever the nationality of the person charged. The consent of the Attorney-General is required before proceedings are begun. In cases where the alleged offence is committed abroad, it may of course be more sensible to extradite the person than to try him here.
Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 deal with extradition. Amendment No. 184 makes torture an extradition crime for the purposes of the Extradition Act 1870. It will automatically become an extradition crime for the purpose of arrangements made under the new extradition law in Part I of the Bill, because it carries a maximum penalty of more than 12 months' imprisonment.
Amendment No. 185 covers a situation where there is no extradition arrangement in force with another state which is party to the torture convention. In such a case the convention itself may be treated as if it were a formal extradition arrangement—but limited, of course, to the crimes of torture which are specified in it. I hope that your Lordships will welcome these amendments. If they are acceptable, we intend to ratify the convention before the end of the year.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, all of us on the Opposition Benches certainly welcome the decision of the Government which will enable us to ratify the torture convention. It is probably through lack of application that it was not done before. However, I am not saying that critically because this has been outstanding for some time. Clearly it was essential that we should be able to fulfil all our obligations in regard to the convention against torture. The practice of torture is something which we have resisted and fought against.
It is rather a depressing thought that Voltaire at the beginning of the 18th century expressed satisfaction that torture was no longer an instrument of government action. Alas, how wrong that forecast proved to be. We are pleased that we have now been brought into line and can deal with this important basic requirement of decency and human rights.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, I think it is worth pointing out, if somewhat briefly, that subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment No. 182 fills an important gap in our law. Indeed, it makes a considerable addition to it.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, I should just like to add something to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. This matter was indeed raised in another place and I am glad that the Government have produced these most important amendments. Normally I look with considerable suspicion at any provision added to the list of offences for which a person can be sent to prison for life. However, on this occasion, it seems to 1601 me entirely appropriate. I very much welcome what the Government have done as a result of listening to the expressions of concern from both Houses on the matter.

Earl Ferrers
My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for agreeing with these amendments. I think that they will make a substantial improvement even if, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, says, rather later than anticipated by Voltaire.