Yesterday the Torture (Damages) bill proceeded to its next stage in the House of Lords. The Bill had its First Reading – a formality – some months ago, followed by Second Reading at which a number of impassioned speeches were delivered. The next step for any bill is the Committee stage. However, since no amendments were tabled, Lord Archer QC who is steering this Private Members’ Bill moved that “the order of commitment be discharged”.
What is the Bill about and what is its fate? The Bill is short and seeks to make it possible for any torture survivor to bring a claim for damages against their torturers in the United Kingdom. The claim could be bought in the UK courts even if the torture occurred outside the UK provided that to adequate or effective remedy exists in the state where the torture took place.
The Italics are important because it is necessarily implied that in bringing a claim the courts are criticising or holding another state to account. This makes the action extremely political and may not chime with current foreign policy. We can all think of states in which we KNOW that torture happens regularly but which have impunity due to political and/or commercial reasons!
And this, of course, is why the Bill is destined to fail.
The kind of PMBs that tend to be successful are those which provide a public good at no cost – for example tightening up animal cruelty regulations or to do with improving rural pathways.
The Torture (Damages) Bill is far too controversial – so why one might ask is it being moved through the House of Lords? The organisation responsible for its drafting, REDRESS, works specifically (and ceaselessly) to document incidents of torture and to seek legal remedies. In so doing it aims to enforce a degree of state accountability for these crimes and to work towards universal compliance with the UN Convention against Torture.
This bill is the first of what will be a very long process to legalise proper redress by torture survivors within the UK courts. No one should hold their breath.
Dear Baroness D’Souza,
I am a keen supporter of any motion that supports fair and equal treatement to all especially in cases of torture. I really find it hard to believe that people will try and block such a bill.
Would you say that people who have been tortured for nothing get a fair hearing of their greivences at the moment in the UK. With regards to an allegation that our government may have been involved with it. E.g. Gitmo or cases in Afghanistan.
Yours sincerely,
James Clarke
The answer I am afaid is probably NO. This is not exclusive to the UK, many, if not most, countries practice political expediency. Relations with countries which have huge assets whether these be oil, minerals or other commodities usually count for more than the human rights of one individual.
This is not to say that there is widespread evidence that democratic countries carry out torture themselves, only that they are often unwilling to acknowledge via their courts that torture has taken place in another country.
Research indicates that part of the process of recovery for torture victims is proper acknowledgement of the wrongs that he or she has suffered.
Finally, I note that you say ‘…tortured for nothing..’ I would submit that torture can never, under any circumstances, be condoned.
“… torture can never, under any circumstances, be condoned.”
Well said. But it is sad that people have to keep on saying it.
“This is not to say that there is widespread evidence that democratic countries carry out torture themselves”
Which is a shame, because there is (for example), and we could do with more people in government not just talking about what we do know that we and our allies do in the name of “security” but also what they intend to do about ending it.
That even such a small measure as this Bill can be stifled by parliamentary procedure indicates that this is a moral stance not many in our government are too keen to make. Opposing torture should be as politically uncontroversial as a measure affirming the cuteness of little puppydogs. That it is not, that we are apparently hedging our bets at the least, is somewhat appalling.