Torture (Damages) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on his initiative in bringing forward this Bill and, perhaps I may humbly say, on the way that he presented it to the House. I particularly welcomed his remark that the Bill should send a signal on where this country stands in relation to torture. I declare an interest as a commissioner of the Independent Asylum Commission which, for the past almost two years, has been establishing evidence on the way that asylum seekers are treated in this country and has recently published its findings, from which I intend to quote. The report is called Fit for Purpose Yet? The question mark remains very strong. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said the principle of diplomatic immunity spelt out in the State Immunity Act 1978 is not aimed at protecting torturers. The aim of the Bill is very much to ensure that the victims of torture should have access to justice. Therefore, I contend that it would ill become a Government who have declared their aim of rebalancing the scales of justice in favour of victims not to accept the Bill and, in doing so, to deny justice for those who seek sanctuary in this country from injustice, including torture, when the fact that they come here to seek sanctuary should be taken as a mark of their belief in what this country stands for. Yet the evidence shows that not only are they currently denied justice but in many ways they are treated disgracefully. We do not know how many people are affected, but I should like to quote some of the interim findings from the commission’s report and then comment on the response that we have had to them. There were two key conclusions, one of which was: "““The Commission has found that the UK asylum system is improved and improving, but … The system still denies sanctuary to some who genuinely need it and ought to be entitled to it … and is marred by inhumanity in its treatment of the vulnerable””." It goes on to say that, "““a ‘culture of disbelief’ persists among decision-makers … The adversarial nature of the asylum process stacks the odds against [asylum seekers], especially those who are emotionally vulnerable … Some of those seeking sanctuary, particularly women, children and torture survivors, have additional vulnerabilities that are not being appropriately addressed””." The report goes on to explain in some detail: "““Asylum seekers who may have been victims of torture are an additional category of people the Home Office states should only be detained in exceptional circumstances. However, research has shown that victims of torture are detained even in cases where the Home Office has prior information obtained during an asylum interview of an applicant’s past torture. Critics believe that instead of providing special care for torture victims, the Home Office may be subjecting them to the very conditions that are likely to hinder recovery. In addition there is concern that the practice of detention discourages applications from asylum seekers who have experienced torture in their own countries and that the experience of being detained in the UK forces them to relive a painful past””." The commission then goes on to talk about being, "““frequently dismayed by the apparent stance of the Home Office in assuming that … clients are lying to gain asylum. Sometimes they look for inconsistencies as proof of this but we know from our understanding of the nature of trauma that memories can easily become fragmented, particularly when under pressure””." Finally, in summing up the treatment of torture survivors in the asylum system, the report states that they are frequently not identified and that they are being fast-tracked. It refers to, "““a lack of understanding among Border and Immigration Agency decision-makers of the reasons why a torture survivor might fail to disclose their experiences””," and, "““the lack of recognition and understanding that expert medical reports may be slow to arrive, or be altogether absent””." Although those findings may appear to be some distance from the Bill, I have drawn attention to them because I believe that, rather than being looked at in isolation, the Bill should be looked at in the context of this country’s behaviour towards those who seek sanctuary here and particularly towards those who come here having been victims of torture. The commission was therefore extremely distressed—I can put it no stronger than that—at the immediate response to the report by the Minister in the Home Office who, on ““The World at One””, said that he had not read it but he rejected every word in it. Had he bothered to read it, he would have seen that those consulted over the long period of 18 months included three former Home Secretaries, the Border and Immigration Agency, the chairman of the all-party group in this House and a vast number of other experts. We were interested in the fact that, despite all the mention of torture and torture victims in the report, the official response from the United Kingdom border agencies to the commission included absolutely no mention at all of the word ““torture”” or the treatment of any of those who had suffered it. Yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, the Ministry of Defence announced a public inquiry into what one can only say were regrettable incidents involving the British Army in Iraq. I, for one, welcome that. There are many former soldiers who I know do not share that view, but on public inquiries I have always taken the line that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. In many ways, I think that the Ministry of Defence will come out the stronger for the fact that it has allowed a public inquiry into this issue. In that same spirit, I say to the Government that they have nothing to fear from sending a signal to the world that those who inflict torture have nowhere to hide from the long arm of the law, particularly in this great country of ours.