---

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the Prime Minister announced on 5 August that the United Kingdom was seeking to negotiate memoranda of understanding with a number of countries in the Middle East and north Africa, containing assurances against torture or ill treatment of those being returned. We have subsequently signed two such MOUs with Jordan and Libya; the MOUs and the assurances contained within them are subject to a monitoring regime conducted by an independent and capable body. The texts are in the Library. A body has agreed to carry out that important role in Jordan; we have agreed in principle with a body in Libya to do the same, and we are now tying down the details with that body.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. I have to assume that the very fact that memoranda of agreement have been negotiated with Jordan and Libya and other countries must mean that the Government have genuine concerns about the possibility of torture of those returnees because torture continues in both those countries. But those countries have signed the international torture convention among many other treaties that carry an absolute prohibition on torture, regardless of the circumstances. Therefore, why does the Minister believe that the bilateral memoranda of agreement will have greater force than the international treaties that carry the force of law?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the necessity for the memoranda is to ensure that standards that we would regard as acceptable are sustained. The methodology described in them is sufficiently robust and contains all the essential elements that we need. The monitors will be chosen on a basis such that we are confident of their efficacy. When individuals fearing any return go to the British courts, I have no doubt that the courts will protect them from any threat of the death penalty or torture. Those are real-world commitments, made on a bilateral arrangement, and commitments that we are confident will be sustained because they have been made in serious negotiation in good faith.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the International Committee of the Red Cross—the ICRC—was asked to monitor the agreement that we entered into with Egypt in 1999, it declined on the basis that it would have wished to monitor all prisons in Egypt, not just a few individuals that we might send back there? Has the ICRC agreed
 
15 Nov 2005 : Column 951
 
to monitor the returns in Jordan and Libya and, if not, is the Minister satisfied that the monitoring bodies that have been chosen are competent to carry out those tasks and that we will be in full compliance with Article 3 if challenged in court?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am confident that we will be in full compliance with Article 3. The proposition is specific in the memoranda; the intention is that these are specific agreements about specific people on a case-by-case basis, who are returned to countries because they pose a terrorism threat to the people of the United Kingdom. We are not asking people to monitor every prison; we are ensuring that the people covered by the specific arrangements meet the full criteria in the memoranda.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, there is an absolute duty to ensure that people are returned to a place where they are not subject to torture, but does my noble friend agree that it is no greater a duty than the one on the Government to protect the people of this country from both the threat and the actuality of terrorism?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I wholly agree with that point. We have an obligation to protect the people of the United Kingdom from threats of terrorism, and we shall do it by ensuring that we sustain a complete respect for human rights and the ECHR obligations, and reinforce the methods of monitoring that ensure that we are doing it properly. But first and foremost—it is absolutely true—we have an obligation to our fellow citizens to ensure that terrorists do not blow them up.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the MOUs signed with Jordan and Libya earlier this year. How many foreign nationals have been deported to each of those countries since those agreements were signed?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I shall make absolutely certain that this answer is accurate, but I believe that the answer is none.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, who are the monitors and what guarantees will there be that they will have continuing access to these people?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the NGO in Jordan is the Adaleh Centre. Discussions are continuing in Libya to identify the body that we believe will do this job as I have described it fully and competently. When a decision on that monitoring body is made, I shall ensure it is in the Library.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, to what extent are these agreements consistent with, or relevant to, our policy—as I understand it—not to extradite people to countries that still practise the death penalty?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, the memoranda make it clear, consistently with Article 3, that people will not
 
15 Nov 2005 : Column 952
 
be sent back if they face the threat of the death penalty or the threat of torture. I add that the courts will be in a position to judge whether the threats are indeed real before anyone is sent back, should anyone apply to the courts. That is the fullest safeguard anyone in the United Kingdom ever has.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I take this opportunity—perhaps the first we have had—to express the condolences of our House to the people of Jordan following the terrible atrocities that occurred there a few days ago. Does the Minister agree that the popular outpouring of protest on the streets of Jordan against the works of al-Qaeda demonstrates that many Muslim people worldwide see the nature of terror as we do, and stand with us against it?

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I fully associate the Government and, I am sure, all parts of the House with the sentiments the noble Lord has just expressed. I can never understand such barbaric deeds, and cannot get my head around the idea that people could go into an event so full of life and celebration as a wedding and butcher others. I am sure it is as repugnant to Muslims as it is to everyone else who has a civilised bone in their body.

House of Lords: Writing Prohibition

2.51 pm

Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked the Chairman of Committees:

Why strangers in the main Public Gallery and below the Bar of the House are prohibited from writing while observing proceedings.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, historically no-one was allowed to report speeches in Parliament, to prevent the Crown inhibiting freedom of debate. In the 19th century restrictions were eased, but only journalists were accredited. The public were still not permitted to take notes, in the belief that this would prevent inaccurate and scurrilous reports. Since 1993 the Commons have permitted the public to take informal notes for personal use. We might do well to follow their example.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have had the wind completely taken out of my sails, although in a most congenial way. When does he think that that sentiment will be reality? Will he and his fellow officers—and indeed the relevant committee—undertake a complete review of the way we offer hospitality to visitors in this place? As one of our peerless Doorkeepers put it to me only a couple of days ago, we treat our visitors like cattle. They start mounting the stairs to the gallery to find an aggressive notice describing them as "strangers"; they reach the top of the stairs and have their body and
 
15 Nov 2005 : Column 953
 
baggage searched a second time within a few minutes; and they enter the Chamber without any real idea of what is going on.

The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that might not necessarily apply only to visitors. If there is a wish to change this rule, and the next few minutes will no doubt demonstrate whether there is that wish in the House, it would be a matter for the Works Committee, which meets next week. I am happy to put a paper to that committee to recommend a change. On the noble Lord's wider point about the reception that visitors receive and the facilities we offer them, that matter has recently been debated in what is popularly known as the Puttnam report. That report will be considered very soon in the Information Committee, and it will no doubt come up with recommendations.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I give my enthusiastic support to any proposition to change this practice. Before I had the privilege of joining this House, I was sitting below the Bar and had the temerity to scratch three words on a bit of paper. I was threatened that if I did it again I would be removed forthwith. It is time that we brought this House into the present century. We serve the public. Surely they have the right to be treated like civilised human beings.

---