The noble Lord makes his case very well, but I will make two points. First, in the subsequent cases, presumably the relevant people looked back at the Chahal case as being the case in which the judgment was made. I would expect those judges to say that there was a precedent. Secondly, the UK has never intervened in a case to say why we believe it should be reviewed. That, surely, should be allowed. We are seeking to do this properly through the European Court; we are not trying to take unilateral action. I argue that the subsequent cases based their decisions on the Chahal case because that is the effect of a precedent in law. I talk as a non-lawyer so I am on dangerous territory, but I think that is right. Along with other European Union countries, we have never had the chance to make our case. We would like to do that, as we believe it is worth considering. Torture is not the only thing in Article 3. It also refers to inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. The court may need to consider all the different ways in which that could be interpreted.
The noble Lord indicated that he supported the memorandum of understanding. I refer to the circumstances that the court in Strasbourg may determine are appropriate and relevant where the measure could be taken into account. As regards saying that you do not send people back to somewhere where they will be tortured, if you have a good memorandum of understanding with certain conditions in place—which says that that will not happen—perhaps that is something that could be considered. The present provision is absolute and we believe that certain issues are not being properly addressed. We have sought to address them through a memorandum of understanding with our domestic courts testing the matter properly and appropriately for the individuals concerned. We have sought to ask the court to look again at the Chahal judgment. I believe that what we have done is right and valid. As I said, win or lose, it is a responsibility of this Government to ensure that we protect our citizens. This measure is an important part of that.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Ashton of Upholland
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c109GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:00:46 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290321
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290321
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_290321