Torture Background [Hansard]

1) General Torture and Rendition Comments and Baclground:

22 December 2005
PM Morning Press Conference
Question:

Prime Minister, speaking of European leaders who have expressed ignorance of the American practice of shipping prisoners back and forth through airports in Britain and Europe to countries that may practise torture, Colin Powell said this week: "Most of our European friends cannot be shocked that this kind of thing takes place. The fact is that we have over the years had in place procedures that would deal with people who are responsible for terrorist activities, and so the thing that is called rendition is not something that is new or unknown to my European friends." Now that you know, do you approve it or will you stop it?

Tony Blair:

Well it all depends on what you mean by rendition. If it is something that is unlawful I totally disapprove of it; if it is lawful, I don't disapprove of it. And I think Jack Straw indicated in his parliamentary answers, in fact I think on radio as well, a case back I think in 1998 when a request had been made to us. Now I don't know whether you would define that as rendition or not, all I know is that we should keep within the law at all times, and the notion that I, or the Americans, or anybody else approve or condone torture, or ill treatment, or degrading treatment, that is completely and totally out of order in any set of circumstances.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8834.asp

Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Tony Blair (Prime Minister, HM Treasury) Hansard source
First, let me again make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that this Government are completely and totally opposed to torture or ill-treatment in any set of circumstances. Our country is a signatory to the United Nations convention against the use of torture, and we will continue to uphold its provisions absolutely. Rendition does not simply apply in those circumstances; it can apply in other circumstances, as the United States Secretary of State has made clear. To be fair, they have also said that they are totally opposed to the use of torture or ill-treatment in any circumstances.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2005-12-14a.1296.3#c3060

VIA the PMOS
12 December 2005
Asked if the Government had ever received a request for an extra-ordinary rendition, as opposed to a rendition, the PMOS said that extra-ordinary rendition was not a phrase that we used. It was a media term. In terms of rendition the Foreign Secretary had spoken this morning about the three occasions on which he, as Home Secretary, and under the previous US administration had received requests. That was all we were aware of in terms of rendition of any kind to date. Put to him that presumably the Government had not agreed to any extra-ordinary renditions because they were illegal, the PMOS said that he would not talk about hypothetical situations. What he would talk about was what was actually the law, which was that we did not in any way condone the use of torture and would not be involved in any process that resulted in the use of torture....

Asked to confirm that the Government had never been asked nor would it give permission for any flights to use this country that it believed might be taking somebody to a country where they might be subjected to torture, the PMOS said that this Government had made it very clear that we did not in any way condone or participate in anything which resulted in people being tortured. Asked if the UK had a rendition process, the PMOS said no.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page8758.asp

Wednesday, 30 November 2005
Jack Straw (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source
The Government, including the intelligence and security agencies, never uses torture for any purposes, including to obtain information. Nor would we instigate others to do so. Where we are helping other countries to develop their own counter-terrorism capability, we ensure that our training or other assistance promotes human rights compliance. Our rejection of the use of torture is well known by our liaison partners.
I am unaware of any adverse impact on the UK's international standing and reputation and the success of British foreign policy from this approach.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-11-30b.29109.h&s=torture

Wednesday, 13 July 2005
Andrew Smith (Oxford East, Lab) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there is a common definition of torture for the purpose of compliance with the human rights obligations of EU member states.

Ian Pearson (Minister of State (Trade), Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source
All EU member states are parties to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Article 1 of the convention sets out an internationally agreed definition of acts that constitute torture, stating that:

"the term torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-07-13.10917.h&s=torture#g10917.q0

Tuesday, 11 January 2005
John Bercow (Buckingham, Con) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to regard as not valid information which he believes to have been obtained by torture.

Jack Straw (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source
The UK vehemently opposes torture as a matter of fundamental principle. The UK intelligence and security agencies carefully evaluate the intelligence they receive against a range of factors; any concerns about the source of the intelligence or the means by which it may have been obtained would be taken into account. Where we are helping other countries to develop their own counter-terrorism capability, we ensure that our training or other assistance promotes human rights compliance.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-01-11.205277.h

Tuesday, 26 October 2004
Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Con) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States about Mr. Craig Murray's reports that the (a) British and (b) US intelligence services were using information extracted from prisoners in Uzbekistan under torture; and if he will make a statement.

Jack Straw (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source
We have regular discussions with the US on Counter Terrorism and human rights.
The UK abides by its commitments under international law, including the UN Convention Against Torture. The British Government, including the intelligence and security agencies, never use torture in order to obtain information. Nor would we instigate others to commit torture for that purpose. We are active in pressing other countries to live up to their human rights obligations and to deliver on human rights commitments they have made.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-10-26.192935.h&s=torture#g192935.q0

Wednesday, 10 December 2003
Jack Straw (Secretary of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source
I am pleased to be able to announce that, today, the UK will ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) when our permanent representative to the UN will deposit the instrument of ratification with the UN Secretary General.

The UK will become the first member of the European Union and the third country in the world to ratify the Optional Protocol. The UK believes that the Protocol will promote a more intensive and concerted approach to eradicate torture through a preventive system of regular, independent visits to places of detention. We will now undertake a campaign urging other countries to sign, ratify and implement both the Convention Against Torture and the Optional Protocol. The Protocol will come into force when 20 countries have ratified it.

The UK played an important role in securing the adoption of the Optional Protocol in 2002 by undertaking extensive lobbying of countries around the world to support the Protocol. The follow-up to our ratification of the OPCAT will be an important part of the current phase of the initiative.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2003-12-10.86WS.0&s=torture

Monday, 8 September 2003
Bill Rammell (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source
I am pleased to be able to announce that, today, the UK has taken a significant step towards ratification of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). I am today laying before Parliament an Explanatory Memorandum, which explains how the UK meets the provisions of the Protocol.

We hope that the ratification process can be completed with the United Nations by the end of this year. This will make the UK one of the very first UN member states to have ratified the Optional Protocol. We signed the Protocol on 26 June, becoming one of only six countries worldwide to have done so.

The UK is committed to the fight against torture. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Anti Torture Initiative, launched in 1998, continues to provide a focus for us on this issue. The follow-up to our ratification of the OPCAT will be an important part of the current phase of the Initiative. We will undertake a lobbying campaign urging other countries to sign, ratify and implement both the Convention Against Torture and the Optional Protocol.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2003-09-08.10WS.1&s=torture

Monday, 24 March 2003
Patrick Mercer (Newark, Con) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he takes to combat torture; and what plans he has to change the means of combating torture.

Bill Rammell (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office) Hansard source
International action against torture is a priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. An anti-torture initiative to tackle torture throughout the world was launched in October 1998. Phase three of the initiative was launched on 26 June 2002. As part of this initiative, which included diplomatic activity, support for regional organisations and practical projects, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office launched two rounds of worldwide lobbying for the universal ratification of the UN Convention against Torture. Since we began lobbying 25 states have ratified. We plan to launch a third round of lobbying this year focusing on implementation of obligations as well as ratification. Last year the UK Government also undertook a widespread lobbying campaign to support the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture. We believe the Protocol offers the best means available to establish an effective international mechanism to combat torture through mandatory visits by national and international independent monitoring committees to places of detention in signatory states. The Optional Protocol was adopted at the UN General Assembly in December 2002. The UK Government are now working to secure early ratification.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office continually updates its strategies for combating torture. This year an expert panel on torture prevention was set up to consolidate the work of the past four years and to advise on future strategy.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-24.104328.h&s=torture