Debates — International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act 2007

2nd reading, Committee stage, Report stage, 3rd reading in the Commons

13 Jun 200753 speechesView in Hansard ↗

The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. On 4 June, the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Lib…
Speaker
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells)Labour
Quote
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. On 4 June, the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia, began before a chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone sitting extraordinarily in The Hague. Former President Taylor stands charged with 11 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, which he is alleged to have committed during Sierra Leone’s brutal civil war. Let me stress at the outset that it is for the Special Court for Sierra Leone to establish whether former President Taylor is guilty of the crimes with which he is charged. He is entitled to a fair trial and I am entirely confident that he will receive one. The simple fact that the trial is taking place sends an extremely powerful message. It sends the message that, no matter how rich and powerful one may be and no matter how untouchable one may at one stage appear, there can be no impunity regarding those most serious crimes. All those on trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone must now answer for their actions. Terrible, shocking crimes happened in Sierra Leone in the late 1990s—of that there can be no doubt. Hon. Members will recall the sickening images of that time. Civilians were slaughtered, mutilated and maimed; women were enslaved and brutalised; and killing, rape and amputation were perpetrated on a massive scale.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)Uncharacteristically for the Foreign Office, the Minister underplays his brief. The genuine significance of Taylor’s pr…
Speaker
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)Conservative
Quote
Uncharacteristically for the Foreign Office, the Minister underplays his brief. The genuine significance of Taylor’s prosecution is that it is the first time that a head of state has been brought before the international courts. It conveys a clear message, which I hope the Foreign Office will trumpet in Khartoum, among other places, that no one, including heads of state, is immune from the reach of the United Nations and international legal tribunals.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsI pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a wise observation. He is right to say that the message will be heard ar…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a wise observation. He is right to say that the message will be heard around the world. Perhaps most seriously, children were drugged, armed and turned into soldiers, then forced to wreak on others the horrors that had been wrought on them and their communities. In May 2000, the United Kingdom brought peace to Sierra Leone. I pay tribute to the bravery and expertise of our troops who carried out that intervention. They have our continued gratitude for the typically courageous and professional job that they undertook. We know from experience that they also have the sincere thanks and respect of the people of Sierra Leone. Since then, we have supported the Government of Sierra Leone as they have sought to consolidate the peace and rebuild a country ravaged by conflict. Seven years on from our military intervention, the people of Sierra Leone are preparing to go to the polls to elect the leaders who will take the next steps on that path of recovery. The UK is providing support for that process, and we will work closely with those leaders as they face the difficult challenges ahead. However, part of the future of Sierra Leone is in coming to terms with the past, and ensuring that those alleged to have committed the shocking crimes of the country’s civil war are held to account. In turn, taking such action sends a message to those who would commit such crimes in future, that if they do so, they will answer for it. With those aims, the Government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations negotiated an agreement back in 2002 to establish the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Special Court is an international criminal tribunal of a hybrid nature, in that it combines elements of Sierra Leonean and international law, and draws on the skills of Sierra Leonean and international staff. The United Kingdom has been one of the Special Court’s strongest supporters since its inception. That has meant ensuring that the court has the resources that it needs to do its work. To that end, we recently made a further payment of £2 million towards meeting the costs of the court, bringing our total contribution since 2002 to £12 million. Our support for international justice goes beyond the financial. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in June last year, if we want to live in a just world, we must take responsibility for creating and fostering it. In practice, that means that we and other states must provide practical assistance to the different international criminal tribunals as they take forward their important work. We live up to that challenge. For example, we co-operate in the exchange of information with the international criminal tribunals, we take witnesses into our witness relocation system, and we imprison some of those convicted by the tribunals in the UK prison system. The legislative basis for doing that is the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which provides, among other things, for our entering into sentence enforcement agreements with the International Criminal Court and other international criminal tribunals established by resolution of the UN Security Council, such as those for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)On the wider point—the Minister mentioned the world—and particularly with respect to Uganda and the International Crimi…
Speaker
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)Conservative
Quote
On the wider point—the Minister mentioned the world—and particularly with respect to Uganda and the International Criminal Court warrant for Kony, the Lord’s Resistance Army rebel leader, does the Minister agree that, although the ICC is well-meaning, an arrest warrant prior to any settlement or the signing of any peace treaty may sometimes hinder rather than help peace?
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsI would have to look at that assertion on a case-by-case basis. The hon. Gentleman mentions northern Uganda. I know tha…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
I would have to look at that assertion on a case-by-case basis. The hon. Gentleman mentions northern Uganda. I know that he feels strongly about these issues, so I am sure that he would not like anyone in Uganda or its neighbouring countries to sense a degree of impunity regarding the crimes that they have committed and continue to commit. We would have to look into that matter very carefully and on a case-by-case basis, as I said, but I take his point. It can be a very sensitive issue, which has to be considered very carefully.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)I heard what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, but in my view the fundamental point about Uganda—an…
Speaker
Mr. Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)Independent
Quote
I heard what the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, but in my view the fundamental point about Uganda—and, indeed, Sierra Leone—is that the writ of the ICC in these cases must be upheld. That is of the greatest importance. One has to recognise that what happens after the proceedings—if, indeed, the arrest warrants are ever executed on Kony and others in northern Uganda—might be a matter for the international community in due course, but the writ itself must be upheld.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsI agree with my hon. Friend. Although it is not the main matter under consideration today, I take his point. What he sa…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
I agree with my hon. Friend. Although it is not the main matter under consideration today, I take his point. What he says about the ICC is a very important consideration.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)I visited Rwanda with a group of colleagues last week; the issue of trials of people involved in alleged genocide is pe…
Speaker
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)Labour
Quote
I visited Rwanda with a group of colleagues last week; the issue of trials of people involved in alleged genocide is pertinent, but I shall say nothing more about that. There is an issue about the growing internationalisation of the justice system. With the best will in the world, we are talking about Sierra Leone today, but we could be talking about arrangements in Rwanda or in former Yugoslavia. Is there any move towards the consolidation of law in order to achieve a smoother transition to a proper justice system, which would be preferable to having to look at individual countries and individual issues? Otherwise, as with Rwanda, we could be completely overwhelmed by the scale of the number of those accused of perpetrating various crimes in Sierra Leone.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsI know that my hon. Friend has great experience in these matters. The message sent out by the Bill is very clear. It wi…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
I know that my hon. Friend has great experience in these matters. The message sent out by the Bill is very clear. It will say many things to many people around the world, but the one thing that I hope it will say is that there really is no impunity for war criminals. We have to try to adapt wherever we can, as we have in Sierra Leone, and if necessary introduce hybrid arrangements to ensure that the guilty parties are brought to justice. That is what matters in the end. I certainly take into account—and I hope others will, too—my hon. Friend’s point that we perhaps require a sharper definition of what international law is likely to look like in the future when it comes to war crimes and so forth. As I was saying, we have imprisoned some of those convicted by tribunals in the UK prison system. The legislative basis for doing so is the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which makes provision, among other things, for our entering into sentence enforcement agreements with the International Criminal Court and also with other international criminal tribunals established by resolution of the UN Security Council, such as those for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It was only after the coming into force of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 that the Special Court for Sierra Leone was established. It is because the court was a new model of tribunal—a hybrid, as I mentioned—established with the full agreement and participation of the Government of Sierra Leone, that a UN Security Council resolution was not required to bring it into being. None the less, the Special Court enjoys full support from the international community. Indeed, the UN Security Council indicated its support by passing a resolution that authorised the UN Secretary-General to negotiate the founding agreement with the Government of Sierra Leone. That is not, however, sufficient to provide an adequate basis for our entering into a sentence enforcement agreement under the terms of the ICC legislation as it stands. The short, two-clause Bill before us will therefore extend the International Criminal Court Act’s provision on sentence enforcement to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Let me briefly explain why we are taking this important step in the case of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. First, we do so because it is another demonstration of the UK’s commitment to international justice—the same commitment apparent in our steadfast support of the tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the same commitment that has since led us to help establish the permanent International Criminal Court and to take a lead as one its strongest supporters, in principle and in practice. I am pleased to note that the ICC is now playing a vital role in breaking down impunity for the shocking crimes taking place in Darfur, in northern Uganda, as we have heard, and elsewhere. Secondly, we are moving this forward because of the UK’s particular commitment to peace, security and development in Sierra Leone. When we made that intervention in May 2000, we also made a commitment to see it through and finish the job. Our support for the Special Court is an important part of that. Through the actions that we are taking, we also safeguard the investment—military, political and financial—that the United Kingdom has made in Sierra Leone. Thirdly—I come now to the reason for our approaching the Bill in expeditious fashion today—we do so to give effect to the commitment that we gave to imprison former President Taylor if he should be convicted at the trial, which began last week in The Hague. Let me speak for a few moments about that commitment and its role in making the trial possible. Former President Taylor was transferred to the detention facility of the Special Court for Sierra Leone in Freetown on 29 March last year, having been indicted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes. Within a short period of time, considerable security concerns arose about former President Taylor’s presence in Freetown. There were fears that his supporters might seek to free him, with terrible consequences for the stability of the region. Owing to those fears, President Kabbah of Sierra Leone and President Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia proposed that former President Taylor’s trial should take place away from the court’s headquarters in Freetown. The Government of the Netherlands agreed to allow the Special Court to sit in The Hague to hear former President Taylor’s trial and the International Criminal Court agreed to allow the court to use its facilities for the trial, but the Dutch insisted that, should former President Taylor be convicted, he must serve his sentence in another state. The UN Secretary-General, in the light of the security concerns and on the advice of UN staff operating on the ground, added his call to that of the regional governments and requested that the United Kingdom agree to make the necessary commitment to the Dutch. I should emphasise that the proposal to transfer the location of former President Taylor’s trial was considered long and hard. We and others were and remain instinctively supportive of the principle that, where possible, a trial should be conducted locally, where it is most accessible and most visible to those who have been affected. However, the security threat was significant and the requests from Kofi Annan, from Presidents Kabbah and Johnson-Sirleaf and from the ECOWAS—Economic Community of West African States—grouping of states were impossible to ignore. On 15 June last year, we announced that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had agreed that, subject to parliamentary legislative approval, the United Kingdom would allow former President Taylor—if convicted and should the circumstances require it—to enter the UK to serve any sentence imposed by the Special Court for Sierra Leone.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)Will the Minister confirm that there is a total of 10 indictees, including Charles Taylor, that nine others are being t…
Speaker
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)Conservative
Quote
Will the Minister confirm that there is a total of 10 indictees, including Charles Taylor, that nine others are being tried at special courts in Sierra Leone itself and that only Charles Taylor is being tried in The Hague? To prevent the Bill from becoming a hybrid one, would it be possible for the other nine indictees, if convicted, to serve their sentences in this country? Is the Minister prepared to put it on the record that it is the British Government’s intention that only Charles Taylor should serve his sentence here?
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsYes, I can put that on the record without any hesitation. It is important to recognise that the other trials, which see…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
Yes, I can put that on the record without any hesitation. It is important to recognise that the other trials, which seem to be proceeding very well in Freetown, are at a rather different level from that of Charles Taylor. In that sense, Charles Taylor is a very special prisoner. That is why he is being tried in The Hague and why he could be imprisoned here. We would certainly never rule out a request from the International Criminal Court or from the Sierra Leone authorities regarding someone else whom we might consider imprisoning, but that would have to be a matter for careful consideration. We certainly do not envisage that happening at this time. Former President Taylor’s transfer to The Hague was subsequently authorised by the president of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and confirmed by United Nations Security Council resolution 1688. Just five days after the announcement of the UK’s commitment, former President Taylor was transferred to The Hague. A real threat to peace and security in Sierra Leone and the wider region had been overcome, and the trial which has now begun had been made possible. Let me stress again that the Bill and any subsequent signing of a sentence enforcement agreement represent a contingency arrangement. Imprisonment in the United Kingdom would take place only if former President Taylor were convicted, if the Special Court requested that the United Kingdom imprison him, and if the United Kingdom agreed to do so. I should also stress that the Bill, and any sentence enforcement agreement signed as a result of its provisions, will not apply specifically to former President Taylor. The Bill does not, therefore, get into the territory of a hybrid Bill. The Bill, which comprises only two clauses, simply establishes the legal basis under which the United Kingdom may sign a sentence enforcement agreement with the Special Court. None the less, I can confirm that the request that was made to us and the political undertaking that we have given relate only to imprisoning former President Taylor, should that be necessary. We have not received a request in respect of any other individual on trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Indeed, our expectation is that any other individuals convicted by the court will serve their sentences elsewhere. To put the matter into context, there are, in total, 10 persons on trial before the Special Court for Sierra Leone, although, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will be aware, one of them has now died. The territorial extent of the Bill is limited to England and Wales. I should stress that that does not indicate any reluctance on behalf of the Scottish Administration, but simply an assessment that the necessary resources exist in England and Wales. It follows, therefore, that any sentence of imprisonment would be served in a prison in England or Wales. I cannot say how long the trial of former President Taylor will last. The reality is that the wheels of international justice have so far turned relatively slowly. None the less, it is possible that the trial might come to a speedy conclusion. That is a factor beyond our control, but it could happen. Our objective is to ensure that, if we are called on to honour our commitment, we are ready to do so as soon as that becomes necessary. The Bill is a further expression of the United Kingdom’s commitment to international justice. It is evidence of our determination to finish the job that we started in Sierra Leone, and it is a clear signal to those who would commit the most serious crimes known to humanity that justice will be done. I commend the Bill to the House.
Time
13:42
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)I congratulate the Minister and his officials—especially Rob Luke in the Foreign Office—on the generous way in which th…
Speaker
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)Conservative
Quote
I congratulate the Minister and his officials—especially Rob Luke in the Foreign Office—on the generous way in which they have been prepared to engage in discussions on the Bill before it came before the House. That has enabled it to pass through all its stages on the Floor of the House this afternoon, which represents exceptionally good use of the House’s time. This is a very good way of disposing of an uncontentious matter and I can confirm that the official Opposition will not oppose the Bill, which has a great deal of merit. The Minister’s colleague in the House of Lords, Lord Triesman, opened the Bill’s Second Reading debate in the other place on 1 May. He said: “A vicious war ravaged Sierra Leone throughout the late 1990s. Wanton killing, mass rape and sexual slavery, mutilation, amputation, the burning of homes and the destruction of property shocked the world. Tragically, those who perpetrated such crimes often used children as soldiers in their war. They enslaved them. They armed them. They made them commit terrible crimes, often against their own loved ones.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2007; Vol. 691, c. 963.] That is a pretty shocking but accurate description of what went on in Sierra Leone in the late 1990s. Fortunately, the successful military intervention in May 2000 by 800 of our excellent paratroopers brought peace to the country. It secured the airport, enabled British citizens to be evacuated and subsequently ensured that the rebels were rounded up. The Bill that we are considering today is a result of those activities. However, Sierra Leone has a history of war and the peace there is fragile; that situation will pertain for some considerable time to come. In 2002, the Government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations set up the Special Court for Sierra Leone so that war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression and genocide could be punished if proven. As the Minister has said, the Special Court is an international criminal tribunal of a hybrid nature, incorporating domestic and international law. It has Sierra Leonean judges and staff sitting alongside international colleagues. The creation of the Special Court will no doubt send a strong message to those who have committed such crimes, or who might be contemplating doing so in the future. Examples that have already been mentioned include crimes involving the resistance army in Uganda, and crimes committed in Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia or anywhere else in the world. As a result of this procedure and of the indictment of Charles Taylor and his fellow indictees, people who would come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court might think twice before committing such dreadful and despicable crimes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said, the Special Court made the unique judgment in 2004 that Charles Taylor was not immune from prosecution by virtue of being a former head of state. That is the first time that that has happened. When the International Criminal Court Act 2001 was passed by this House, however, these crimes, although known about, had not been brought before the International Criminal Court. It was therefore not possible for the Act to incorporate the court, as it did in the case of Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Two possible special hybrid courts exist at the moment, in Cambodia and in Sierra Leone. The International Criminal Court Act 2001 needs to be amended because it does not cover these particular circumstances. I should make clear two absolute caveats, however. The Minister said that there were 10 detainees, but I believe that the figure is 11: the former Liberian President Charles Taylor and nine others, plus one who is missing and presumed dead. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is the case. Will he also confirm that while Charles Taylor is standing trial in The Hague, three parallel courts are each trying three people in Freetown in Sierra Leone?
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsI take it that the person who died, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, is Samuel Hinga Norman. An autopsy has confirm…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
I take it that the person who died, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, is Samuel Hinga Norman. An autopsy has confirmed that Mr. Norman died of natural causes. The court has undertaken its own inquiry into the matter. I understand that he had been transferred to Senegal for medical treatment while on trial before the court. I should reiterate that we have full confidence in the court and its procedures, including the inquiry into the Norman death.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I was in no way casting aspersions on the proceedings of the Speci…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I was in no way casting aspersions on the proceedings of the Special Court; I was merely trying to put on the record what I believe to be the correct number of indictees.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab)First, I want to confirm that the hon. Gentleman’s understanding is accurate. Secondly, I want to reinforce for the rec…
Speaker
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab)Labour
Quote
First, I want to confirm that the hon. Gentleman’s understanding is accurate. Secondly, I want to reinforce for the record what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said. I have visited the special court on no fewer than four occasions, and I can confirm that its medical facilities, which service those men, are the best in the country.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. Some concerns have been expressed about the conditions in which former…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. Some concerns have been expressed about the conditions in which former President Charles Taylor has been held. Notably, in the other place, Lord Avebury mentioned the issue of a camera in his cell. I think that that matter has been resolved. The other nine indictees, if convicted, could be dealt with under the provisions of this amending Bill. As the Minister has kindly put on the record, the Government intend only Charles Taylor to come under its provisions, although there is no reason why the other nine could not be considered on a special request from the Special Court. It would then be up to the UK Government to consider that request. Only if they considered and agreed it would they sign a special enforcement provision to that effect.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Tony BaldryOne of the unacceptable aspects of all this is the ad hocery of international justice in which the burdens fall randoml…
Speaker
Tony BaldryConservative
Quote
One of the unacceptable aspects of all this is the ad hocery of international justice in which the burdens fall randomly. Norway said long ago that it would be willing to take and imprison a number of those at the Special Court, if convicted. Understandably, however, it was not also willing to accept the burden of imprisoning Charles Taylor, were he convicted. The international community cannot continue in this ad hoc way for ever, whereby the UN must scrabble around to find which country is willing to imprison which person. I am not sure which departmental spending budget would cover such activity. Does it qualify as Department for International Development or Foreign Office spending?
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsHome Office.
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
Home Office.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Tony BaldryThe Minister says from a sedentary position that it would be the Home Office. That is one of the broader issues that th…
Speaker
Tony BaldryConservative
Quote
The Minister says from a sedentary position that it would be the Home Office. That is one of the broader issues that the House must address.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownMy hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that 104 countries r…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that 104 countries ratified the ICC legislation in 2002. Therefore, as I understand it, any one of those 104 countries could be called on to carry out the prison enforcement agreements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury—who is a lawyer—will have picked up, the problem in this case is that the court is a special, hybrid one, so it is not covered by the ICC Act. Had it been covered by that Act, we would not be here today, as we would not need to pass an amending Act. The Minister will confirm that only two hybrid Special Courts are in existence—that for Cambodia, and that for Sierra Leone. Perhaps he will also confirm that the UK has no intention whatever of taking any prisoners from the Cambodian special court, as that would require another amending Act. Other than in the case of those two special courts, this type of amending legislation should not be needed in the future, unless something unforeseen arises. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury is right that a greater understanding is perhaps necessary among those 104 countries that any one of them could be asked to carry out not only the imprisonment obligations, but even the trial obligations. Although I agree with the Minister that it is desirable on the whole for the trial to take place in the country in which the atrocities have been committed, an adjoining or third country might be required to carry out a trial in certain circumstances. In this case, the facilities of the International Court of Justice in The Hague were deemed by the United Nations and others to be ideal for the trial.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsThe hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. His hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) put his finger on a very i…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. His hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) put his finger on a very important issue. When asking why we are taking prisoners from Sierra Leone, I have heard the terrible phrase used, “Well, it is our sphere of influence.” Whose sphere of influence is Cambodia? Which nations have the resources and the political will? I heard the hon. Member for Banbury say that countries may be signed up, but they will not act. We must get clarity on who is responsible for such trials in whatever part of the world.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownThe whole House will have heard the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, in his…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
The whole House will have heard the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend, in his customary way, will wish to pursue the matter on another occasion,
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasI concur with the view that the countries that have signed the agreement should take their fair share of the responsibi…
Speaker
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasLabour
Quote
I concur with the view that the countries that have signed the agreement should take their fair share of the responsibility for housing such criminals, but the reality is that the facilities available in different countries vary enormously. They range from buildings that would easily be overcome by those who were intent on freeing individuals, to prisons such as those in the UK, which it is out of the question that anyone could break into or out of. On the basis of the construction and security of facilities, quite a small number of countries would be eligible.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownThe hon. Lady makes an interesting point. When the Special Court or the International Criminal Court has sentenced some…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. When the Special Court or the International Criminal Court has sentenced somebody for such a hideous crime, and asks an individual country to sign an imprisonment enforcement agreement, I assume that it will take precisely those facts into account. We shall no doubt come on to the conditions under which Charles Taylor, were he convicted, might be held in this country, and in what sort of prison. The first caveat is that Charles Taylor could be considered along with others, so the Bill will not become hybrid. The second caveat is that the Bill is making only a hypothetical provision in the event that Charles Taylor and his fellow accused are convicted. Nothing that we say in the House today should presume that they will be convicted, and therefore prejudice their trial. With regard to the time line, the current indictment relates to events as far back as 30 November 1996, but was not envisaged when the ICC Act 2001 was enacted. Charles Taylor and his fellow indictees face 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. On 29 March 2006, Charles Taylor was arrested and transferred to the detention facility in Freetown, Sierra Leone. As the Minister said, there were security concerns as it was felt that his supporters might destabilise Sierra Leone or the region. He was then transferred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. On 15 June 2006, the Foreign Secretary made a written statement to Parliament that the UK would, under legislation that we are considering today, permit Charles Taylor to serve a sentence, if it was passed by the court. On 20 June 2006, he was transferred to The Hague, as authorised by the president of the Special Court and confirmed by United Nations Security Council resolution 1688, as the Minister mentioned. On 4 June 2007, the trial in The Hague opened. There have been various reports about the trial, and I would ask the Minister to clarify one or two matters. It has been alleged in the media that Charles Taylor’s defence counsel has funding for only six months, whereas the prosecution counsel has funding for 10 months. Can the Minister confirm that there is adequate funding for both prosecution and defence? The Minister said that he could not envisage how long the proceedings would take, but the special adviser on the case has said that they may take until the middle of 2009, or until the end of 2009 if it goes to appeal. Can the Minister give us any more information? According to the Government’s regulatory impact assessment, the cost of imprisonment in a high-security prison in 2005-06 was about £44,000, and according to today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph Milan Martic, the former rebel Croatian Serb leader convicted of atrocities against Croat civilians, was sentenced by the International Criminal Court to 35 years in prison. Can the Minister confirm that in the hypothetical event of Charles Taylor being sentenced to a fixed term of about the same period, it would cost this country something in the region of £1.5 million? That is not an insignificant sum. I should be grateful if the Minister would put it on the record—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, with great perspicacity, was trying to establish this—that the cost would be borne by the Home Office and not by the Foreign Office. Does the Minister accept that it is essential, in terms of human justice, for the trial not to take too long? Mention has been made today of Sam Hinga Norman, who died at the end of a four-year trial. Four years strikes me as a very long time for a trial to last, even in international criminal law. Does the Minister agree with the assessment of the independent expert and judge Antonio Cassese that although the verdict on the other indictees in Sierra Leone could be delivered in 2008, the verdict on Charles Taylor is likely to be delivered a year later, in mid-2009, with an appeal extending the period to the end of 2009? I have already asked the Minister about funding. I believe that he said that Britain had given £2.5 million to the International Criminal Court mechanism. Will some of that money be spent, if necessary, on filling the shortfall between the funds for the prosecution and those for the defence? In the event of a conviction, the Special Court would ask the United Kingdom to enter into a prison enforcement agreement. No doubt there would be discussions with the Foreign Office and the Home Office. At that point, and only at that point, if the United Kingdom agreed the Bill would come into force. Can the Minister confirm that it will be for the Special Court to determine whether Charles Taylor is imprisoned in a high-security prison initially and then in a lower-security prison, and that the questions of an appeal and early release will also be matters for the Special Court? How will the court’s residuary functions be fulfilled? Will there be an ad hoc panel of judges and supporters to be reconvened as necessary when issues arise? Can the Minister confirm specifically that in the hypothetical event of Charles Taylor requesting asylum here at the end of his prison term, the United Kingdom would consider his application on its merits, but would observe the absolute provision in asylum law that the United Kingdom can deport a non-UK citizen who is convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity? I thank the Minister for the way in which he has handled this matter. We have covered a great deal of ground today and I have no doubt that the proceedings in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading will be succinct. I do not expect that we will have to detain the House today for the full six hours so generously allowed by the timetable motion. That would take us to nearly 7.45 pm, well after the seven o’clock motion, and I do not intend to detain you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or hon. Members for that length of time.
Time
14:03
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab)I have the pleasure of being chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the west African Mano river region, which…
Speaker
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas (Crosby) (Lab)Labour
Quote
I have the pleasure of being chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the west African Mano river region, which includes Sierra Leone as well as Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire and Guinea-Bissau. I have fulfilled the role for the past two years, and it is not a particularly easy one, because not many people are interested in that part of the world. It is a very poor part of the world, there is not an awful lot of oil about, and in my opinion it is dreadfully neglected. My involvement with Sierra Leone began when I was invited to be part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation at the behest of Mr. Win Griffiths, the former Member of Parliament for Bridgend. He took me to Sierra Leone shortly after the British Army brought the rebels to their knees in the centre of Freetown. It was a difficult visit for me to undertake: I knew nothing about Sierra Leone, and was as guilty of neglect and lack of interest as—I suspect—were my colleagues. Some people find it necessary to go to a place to appreciate it properly, and I am afraid that I am one of those people. I suppose it is a sad commentary on myself. It is almost impossible to describe the state of Sierra Leone at the time of my visit. I know that other Members have been there as well, and I expect they will speak later about their impressions of the environment and the people, but at the time of my visit Freetown consisted of a collection of human beings, none of whom held each other’s hands, shuffling along the streets. There were, and still are, approximately 2 million people living in a city designed for 250,000, and during the week that I spent there I saw not one person smile. I saw not one spark of life in anyone. I suppose that a nation recovering from the worst civil war it is possible to imagine would be expected to react in that way. The action of the British Army was greeted with tremendous gratitude. I attended our Prime Minister’s celebrations in Sierra Leone two weeks ago, when he was awarded a doctorate for services to the country, and there was not a person there who was not crying. Although the war had finished a long time ago, there was not a person in Sierra Leone who was not dreadfully affected by what the rebels had done. There was not one family who had not lost someone, and not in an ordinary way. I am not talking about a “decent” death by, for instance, shooting; I am talking about mutilation and torture of whose like no special court has heard in the history of special courts, certainly since the Nuremberg trials. I am tremendously proud of the actions of our Government. I am proud that we stepped in as a result of President Kabbah’s request, I am proud that we are still there, and I am proud that we have provided money for the Special Court. Neither the area nor the activity is popular and justice is an expensive business, but we have stepped in. We are here today because of the nature of that Special Court, and the fact that it differs from other special courts that have been established. We are here to seek the House’s agreement that if Charles Taylor were convicted of the crimes of which he is accused, we would undertake our role and ensure that he was imprisoned here in the United Kingdom. I think it right and proper for us to take responsible action in the light of what this man has done, and the problem that he continuously presents to the people of Sierra Leone. I know a lot about Charles Taylor because I have spoken to hundreds of people who suffered, indirectly or directly, at his hands. To say that he is the most despicable man of whom I have ever read or heard is an understatement. I spoke to the former chief prosecutor of the Special Court, Mr. David Crane. David had the challenging job of setting up the Special Court, and he did a magnificent job, along with colleagues from the United Kingdom. He said, “Every one of us working in this court has experience of the court in Rwanda, and we have worked in Bosnia. In fact, many of us were there during the latter days of the Nuremberg trials. The crimes that we are being asked to consider now make the crimes committed in those other atrocities pale into insignificance.” As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East pointed out today, Charles Taylor was considered the worst of all because of the type of crime that he committed and oversaw. He was of course responsible for the rebel army that perpetrated crimes on his behalf. In my mind there is no doubt at all that he is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused because, as I say, I have spoken to people who suffered directly at his hands. I have visited Sierra Leone on many occasions since my first visit; in fact, I have undertaken seven visits so far, and I made four of them to listen to proceedings in the Special Court. I shall describe the Special Court to everyone, because I recognise that I am in a privileged position in being able to do so. The Special Court is a unique building in a unique setting. It is designed purely to hold the 11 men accused of committing the crimes in question, so the facilities are restricted to provision for just 11 men. There is an extensive compound, which is available to the prosecution and defence teams, who can use it to prepare and review their work. There are special facilities for witnesses who come to the court. Many of those witnesses are either direct victims, or have watched a procedure, and may be the only witnesses left to testify to an atrocity. A United Nations force is there, and there are representatives from all over the world who staff the Special Court to make sure that the international standards that have been established to support it are enforced on a daily basis. Admittance and access to the Special Court are by invitation only, but the Special Court does not begin to compare with one of our secure prisons. I do not want hon. Members to think of it as a heavily defended facility, because it is not. It is not as well defended as one of our open prisons—well, that might be doing it a disservice, but not too much of one. There is some inspection and interrogation of visitors, but if someone was determined to get into the Special Court, they could. I think that that was one of the reasons why President Kabbah and other leaders in the west coast region wanted to move Charles Taylor out: they recognised that they could not build a facility like Fort Knox or Wakefield prison, which houses huge numbers of sex offenders. There could be no wall 30 ft high and 9 ft thick, with barbed wire. It does not look like that. The front wall is perhaps 12 ft high with a bit of barbed wire, but the building is no fortress. Once one gets into the main court area, access to the court is fairly straightforward. There is some bag checking. In the court itself, there is a small area in which visitors can witness proceedings, but the court is very small. Visitors are separated from the accused by a glass wall, which is there to protect visitors from the view of the accused. That, of course, is done to ensure that none of the accused can let supporters who come to witness proceedings know who they regard as potential enemies in need of disposal. The facilities in which the prisoners are kept are good by our standards, and I have visited a significant number of prisons in the UK. There is no doubling-up in the Special Court; there is a cell for everyone. A single corridor fronts each and every cell, and every cell has a door. By Sierra Leone standards, we are talking about exceptional accommodation. It is a concern to millions of people in that country that those who perpetrated the worst crimes against them have suddenly found themselves in what they would call five-star luxury—and it is five-star luxury. As I say, by our standards they are very good cells. They are large—they are about 12 ft by 7 ft—and they contain a good bed, a television, plenty of air, and lighting. The vast majority of people in Sierra Leone do not have access to electricity, but people who are accused of serious crimes there have access to light. The facilities available to people accused of crimes in the Special Court are therefore exceptionally good. As I said earlier, I do not think that we need to worry too much about the health of the people held in the Special Court: I was told that if I fell ill while I was in Sierra Leone, there was only one place that I would be taken to, and that was the health facility in the Special Court. There is every intention of ensuring that if anything happens to any of the men accused they will get immediate medical assistance, because nobody in Sierra Leone wants those men to die any sooner than is absolutely necessary. Everybody wants to make sure that they are as well and as fit as possible, because they must be seen to stand trial for the crimes of which they are accused. I hope that I have described the nature of the Special Court and the conditions in which the men there are being held. I regard the conditions as exceptionally good, even by our standards. However, safety standards there leave a huge amount to be desired, when compared to those in our country. I want to talk briefly about Charles Taylor. I do not intend to describe his indictment, although I have a record of it in front of me.
Time
14:25
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I would like to make a point before she moves on. She did herself a disservi…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I would like to make a point before she moves on. She did herself a disservice in her earlier comments; Members of the House often need to go to the areas of the world in which they are interested and witness things there with their own eyes so that they can come back informed and talk in the House about what they have seen, as she has done so adequately. She has described in great detail the conditions in which Charles Taylor is being held by the Special Court. Does she have any views on how he ought to be held in this country? In what sort of prison, and what sort of conditions, ought he to be held?
Time
14:25
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasHaving visited category A, B and C prisons—
Speaker
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasLabour
Quote
Having visited category A, B and C prisons—
Time
14:25
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasWith your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should just like to say that Charles Taylor will probably be remanded to a…
Speaker
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasLabour
Quote
With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should just like to say that Charles Taylor will probably be remanded to a category A prison as they are the prisons that house our most violent and dangerous offenders. I would not put money on it, but the prison is likely to be Wakefield, because it is a very secure establishment. I would like to talk about my visit to various communities affected by the civil war. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister finds it very difficult to talk about what Charles Taylor has done, and to review the crimes that he is alleged to have committed, and I share that view. I visited a number of communities, and I should like to tell the House a little bit about that. I visited a lovely community in Sierra Leone called Waterloo, which is a big town and the last place held by the rebels before they were forced to capitulate. It is a major interface between the country and the city. The rebels knew that if they held it they controlled a major access point, both in and out, so the people of Waterloo had an appalling time. I now know many of the people in the town. Waterloo in my own constituency is twinned with the community: we are building up all sorts of partnerships, and it is a privilege to be able to do so. When Charles Taylor was in power, his rebel forces were stationed in Waterloo, which had three checkpoints. At either side of those checkpoints there was a spiked cartwheel-like arrangement, and every day for seven years, a new head was placed on the spikes. The bodies were dumped on the steps of the local church. I know the priest very well indeed, and his job was to match the heads to the bodies at the end of every day. The chairman of the council is a lovely man called Alieu Mansaray. Borough councillors are the same all over the world: at the moment, Alieu is complaining about central Government policy, lack of money and so on, so everything is settling down to normality. However, when I talked to him about what Charles Taylor’s forces did in his community, he said, “Claire, there was rape and pillage.” In six years, every woman in his community was raped. It did not matter if they were six months old or 80 years old—they were all raped. Many women went on to have children by the men who raped them. Many of the children in the community were abducted, after being forced to murder or rape their own parents. I find that difficult to come to grips with, but energising at the same time—as human beings, we must be able to respond to that degree of abuse whenever it arises. I reiterate what I said earlier: I am immensely proud that we stepped in and are doing what every human being should do when confronted by such atrocities, as the people of Waterloo could not defend themselves. On my last visit, I met an elderly woman. It is difficult to get people to talk about what happened to them in the war. It is a bit like the position for many Jews who found themselves in Auschwitz: it is over, and they want to move on. However, I was in the country when Charles Taylor was brought back to the Special Court from Nigeria. As the helicopter carrying him flew over the city, people fell to their knees and cried. They were shaking with fear, even though he was in the helicopter. Olive Williams, a lovely elderly woman, said that it was very sad for her that the war did not come to an end earlier, because she would still have had her son. As Charles Taylor’s days were coming to an end, her son was decapitated in front of her, then she was forced to breastfeed his head. She said, “It sounds awful, doesn’t it, Claire?” I said, “Yes, it does.” She said, “I wasn’t the only one, that day. There were half a dozen of us.” I therefore understood only too well why people were shaking in the streets at the prospect of Charles Taylor’s return. I feel like that myself—I had never heard of anyone who could commit such crimes. I understand, too, why it was vital that we pulled him out of the country. It is extremely difficult for people to deal with someone like that; it is difficult for a country in so much terror of that man. I was delighted when he was sent to The Hague, which is the right place for him. My hon. Friends and other Members should know that when he was held in the Special Court while those international discussions were under way, he did not mix with anyone else. He chose isolation—he did not even mix with the men with whom he stood jointly accused. He did not spend any time talking to them at all. I saw him briefly myself, although not to talk to. I could see that he was very much afraid that they might kill him. He was very concerned about his personal safety, and he has a right to be concerned about that. I hope, however, that that was not the reason why he was moved. I hope that he was moved because there are millions of people in Sierra Leone who remain terrified of him today. The fact that he was incarcerated did not help them at all. Now that he has been moved to The Hague, his pernicious effect on Sierra Leone has been marginalised. The country is about to hold presidential elections in August so, to ensure that they are conducted well, it was vital that he was moved out of the country. His presence is not a positive one, and it might have jeopardised a fragile state. Sierra Leone is still terribly poor—it is the second poorest country in the world—so if we can remove destabilising characters from such countries, that is a good thing. I fully endorse the sentiment that, where possible, people should be tried in their own country for crimes that they have committed. Occasionally, however—not very often, thank God—individuals such as Charles Taylor appear, and every such case must be treated on its merits. The fact that he was moved to The Hague was a very good thing, in my opinion. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) raised the issue of trials that take a very long time, and people in Sierra Leone ask why it has taken so long to bring those men to book. There is a simple answer. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) said that obligations under international law were not fully understood or even supported, and that difficulty is reflected in Charles Taylor’s failure to appear in The Hague or acknowledge the court’s legitimacy. David Crane spent a number of years ensuring that all the proceedings entered into in Sierra Leone would stand the most rigorous test by any other court established to interrogate those operations. That took quite a bit of time, even before people collected evidence for the indictments. That group of men committed crimes the length and breadth of Sierra Leone. Some 80 per cent. of the population is illiterate, so collecting evidence from witnesses was difficult. It was difficult, too, to persuade them that it was safe to appear in court, so that procedure took an inordinate length of time. There was an obligation, too, to collect evidence when there were no witnesses left who were prepared to come to court but there was clear evidence that a significant atrocity had been committed. It was essential to link that atrocity to the individual perpetrators who stood accused of those crimes in the court. That explains the four years. In addition, it has been implied that prosecution actions have been tardy, but each of those individuals has a right to an adequate defence. As the prosecution has built and disclosed its cases, the defence team have been successful in seeking adjournments while they prepare further defence for the people they represent. It would not have done justice to the individuals, to the crimes they have committed or to the people against whom those crimes have been committed if the proceedings had been expedited. More than 50,000 people were involved in the rebel army, but only 11 will stand trial, and they bear the greatest responsibility. I hope that that explains to the hon. Member for Cotswold why the cases have taken so long.
Time
14:25
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownBecause of the hon. Lady’s legal experience, the information she is providing is extremely useful. However, what if Jud…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
Because of the hon. Lady’s legal experience, the information she is providing is extremely useful. However, what if Judge Antonio Cassese is correct that the indictment and all the evidence have already been gathered in the Charles Taylor case? The trial started on 4 June this year. If the judge is correct that the actual trial will take more than two years, does the hon. Lady not think that that is too long?
Time
14:25
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasI might have been inclined to agree had I not attended some of the proceedings, which are tortuous in the extreme. Ther…
Speaker
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasLabour
Quote
I might have been inclined to agree had I not attended some of the proceedings, which are tortuous in the extreme. There is a huge amount of legal argument before those involved settle to the substantive matters. Days can go by with the defence and the prosecution supporting or opposing a particular position before there is a chance to hear any contributions from any of the witnesses, or from the accused themselves. There are also other issues that take time to address, such as ensuring witness protection and witness arrangements. Two years is the longest period for any of the cases. Some have involved matters such as international law protocols. The proceedings in Sierra Leone have been conducted much more quickly than those of the other international courts, such as that for Rwanda. I suspect that that is a benefit of there having been a low international profile. If there had been more international interest, the proceedings might have taken considerably longer. The absence of such interest has allowed the proceedings to move forward swiftly. It is immensely important for Sierra Leone that justice is done, and that it is seen to be done. Allocating this period of time will indicate to many people that the job has been done well, that if Charles Taylor is convicted he is well and truly convicted, and there is no chance of his returning to court on appeal because correct procedure has not been followed. Everybody wants that. I suspect that Charles Taylor wants to make sure that he has a fair trial, and everybody else does as well. I am proud of what our country has done in intervening to bring this horrific war to an end and in stepping in with the money for the Special Court. David Crane went on bended knee all over the world searching for money and he could not get the money to establish that court, but we stepped in. I am also proud that we supported the application for Charles Taylor to be moved to The Hague, and that we are prepared to incarcerate him. I hope that we do so for life. I hope that there is never a question of him possibly being let out or being given asylum. Life is the only fitting sentence for a man who has committed the sorts of crimes that he has. When I go to Sierra Leone people often ask me of Charles Taylor, “Where’s he going, and what’s it like?” I am able to describe Wakefield prison to them in detail. I am able to talk about the height and width of the walls, about the cell where he will be kept, and the visiting rights. They are enormously reassured that he will be put somewhere where he will be safely housed and where, crucially, they will be safe from him. I am immensely proud that we will have achieved that and have given those people what they deserve: justice and freedom from a terrible man.
Time
14:25
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), whose testimony was powerful. She spoke mo…
Speaker
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Quote
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), whose testimony was powerful. She spoke movingly, knowledgeably and with great sincerity. The Liberal Democrats support the proposed change to the International Criminal Court Act 2001, and the commitment to human rights that it demonstrates. Without well-publicised enforcement of human rights laws and without an obvious determination to see that those who are alleged to have broken them are brought to justice, those laws will not deter future war criminals and human rights offenders. It is right that Britain should lead the way by sending a clear signal to the rest of the world that those alleged to have violated human rights will be tried and, if necessary, punished. By agreeing to imprison Charles Taylor, should he be convicted, we are doing just that. Often, apparent support for human rights laws by major international players is not backed by their actions, and violations by so-called friends abroad are ignored because of the possible financial and political ramifications of calling them to account. I hope that this move by the Government illustrates a new willingness to engage wherever there are human rights abuses. I add my party’s congratulations to those of Members who have spoken of the sterling and remarkable work of our troops in helping to end this conflict and bring peace and democracy to a region so devastated by the effects of a war that shocked the rest of the world.
Time
14:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD)I am privileged to represent a borough that has the largest African community in the country, including many from Sierr…
Speaker
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Quote
I am privileged to represent a borough that has the largest African community in the country, including many from Sierra Leone. May I associate those whom I know of them—whatever their politics in respect of Sierra Leone—with that commendation of the actions of the Government, our troops and this Bill? If everyone in the UK who comes from Sierra Leone sees justice being done with our support, that will not only be great for the future of Sierra Leone, but will greatly help the future relationships between this country, the west and Europe and Sierra Leone.
Time
14:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mark HunterI thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes his point in his usual excellent way. None of us will forget the…
Speaker
Mark HunterLiberal Democrat
Quote
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes his point in his usual excellent way. None of us will forget the reports that have emerged of the mass murders, rapes, mutilations and amputations, and the involvement of child soldiers. By agreeing to imprison Charles Taylor, should he be found guilty, we are rightly finishing the job that we have started. I wish to make a few specific points about the Bill, and I have some questions for the Minister, but I want to make it clear that I have no criticism of the principle behind the Bill, which we fully support. I am concerned about the impact of the decision to move the trial of Charles Taylor out of Sierra Leone to The Hague. There is still considerable disquiet among the people of Sierra Leone and members of the international community about the decision. That the victims of the war in Sierra Leone feel that they have ownership of the court is important to the process of recovery from the conflict. A Human Rights Watch paper published in June last year stated that “there is a real risk that his trial will feel distant and less meaningful to the people most affected by the crimes.” I understand from the speech of the Foreign Office Minister Lord Triesman on Second Reading in the Lords that an outreach programme is in place. I invite the Minister to expand a little today on what that programme involves. What actions does he understand are being taken to make this trial accessible to the people of Sierra Leone themselves? We need to ensure that the court is seen as legitimate and effective by the people of Sierra Leone, in order to allow the country to recover from the aftermath of this most dreadful war. There is another issue on which I seek some clarification. Who precisely will make the decisions relating to an early release or a revision of the sentence, once the Special Court for Sierra Leone ceases to exist? On Second Reading in the Lords, Lord Triesman said that these decisions would be made by a designated successor body from within the international court system, but that the situation would be clarified later. Perhaps this is the right time for the Minister to confirm that that will be the case, and to expand on how he envisages the body will work, and who the likely members of it will be. There is also concern about any possible claim that Charles Taylor might make after completing his sentence in a UK prison. In a statement, Lord Triesman said that the expectation is that Taylor would leave the UK on release or face removal, on the grounds that the refugee convention contains provisions to refuse asylum to those involved in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. However, on 15 April, The Sunday Telegraph published sections from a leaked ministerial memorandum stating that Taylor might choose to remain in Britain after his release, claiming asylum, and that this “might represent a danger to the public or a drain on public resources”. I realise that under current immigration law, it is of course open to the Home Secretary to order the deportation of any non-British citizen whose removal from the United Kingdom is deemed conducive to the public good, but can the Minister confirm today that if this situation arose, the Home Secretary would indeed be mindful not to grant asylum in those circumstances? There have also been some criticisms of the way in which the court itself is being administered. On Second Reading in the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Avebury alluded to the report on the Special Court for Sierra Leone by Judge Antonio Cassese, to which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has also referred. Of course, Judge Cassese was appointed by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as an independent expert, with a mandate to review the efficiency of the Special Court. One issue that I want to press the Minister on today is the funding of the court itself. As I understand it, Judge Cassese is still concerned about the court’s insecure financial situation because of its reliance on voluntary contributions. In his report, he states that the United Nations has already had to bail the SCSL out three times already, costing a total of nearly $50 million.
Time
14:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Tony BaldryThis is not a question of the UN having to bail out the court—it is a UN court. Her Majesty’s Government and other Gove…
Speaker
Tony BaldryConservative
Quote
This is not a question of the UN having to bail out the court—it is a UN court. Her Majesty’s Government and other Governments such as the United States have funded this court. The hon. Gentleman cannot come to this Chamber as a Front-Bench spokesman, having basically got his facts right, and simply recite a load of criticisms from people such as Lord Avebury. He really ought to do his prep better. It is the UN that should be funding the court, not us. We should not have to go cap in hand around the nations of the world getting penny numbers.
Time
14:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mark HunterI thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he restrains himself for just a moment longer, he will discover tha…
Speaker
Mark HunterLiberal Democrat
Quote
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. If he restrains himself for just a moment longer, he will discover that I was about to come on to the contribution that the British Government have made. I regret the fact that he seeks to create division in the House today, where I thought, to judge by the opening comments, there would be no significant division. [Interruption.] I stand by everything that I have said, and I will answer the hon. Gentleman, who is making comments from a sedentary position. This lack of stable funding has made it difficult to provide a long-term plan, especially for ensuring that there are enough staff with the expertise needed to run the court effectively. The situation still needs to be addressed, despite protestations from the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I accept that this Government have recently pledged £2 million to the court, but can the Minister please give us an up-to-date account of the future funding situation?
Time
14:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasI rise to support the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). The reality is that this should…
Speaker
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasLabour
Quote
I rise to support the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). The reality is that this should be a UN-sponsored court, but the facts on the ground show that every prosecutor involved has to go cap in hand to countries such as ours, so that we can step in where the UN has failed to do so. The UN does deliver, eventually, but only part of what it promised and far too late. One cannot conduct the proceedings of a court on that basis. It is this country—and the US—that has provided the consistent funding needed to keep these trials going while the UN dithers. The role is the UN’s, not ours, and we should take the argument to the UN and not bring it home here.
Time
14:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mark HunterI thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. There is no fundamental disagreement between us. I have not said anything,…
Speaker
Mark HunterLiberal Democrat
Quote
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. There is no fundamental disagreement between us. I have not said anything, implicitly or directly, to suggest that anybody other than the UN is responsible for the funding. Indeed, I have gone out of my way to acknowledge the contribution that the UK Government have made, but in the context of this debate, I am entitled to ask the Minister representing the Government for a current assessment of the future funding of this court. Frankly, I would be amazed if that were not a matter of some concern to Members in all parts of the House. Judge Cassese’s report also contained several recommendations on how to improve the smooth running of the court, one of which is the strengthening of judicial leadership. Following the problems, which have been alluded to, involving surveillance cameras being placed in consultation rooms when the defendant met his lawyers, in accordance with International Criminal Court rules, Judge Cassese says that there needs to be clear leadership from the judges directly involved on which rules apply—those of the International Criminal Court, or those of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The report also raises the issue of communication between staff in The Hague and Freetown, and between the Special Court and the ICC. These links do indeed need to be strengthened if the court is to run effectively. Judge Cassese also said that the defence office needs to be reformed and properly funded to provide administrative, logistical and legal support for the defence team. That is particularly important, because the trial needs not only to be fair but to be seen to be fair if the court is to be a success. I should be interested to hear from the Minister today the opinion that the Government now have about Judge Cassese’s recommendations. The Minister might also tell the House which of those recommendations are likely to be implemented, and how the process of implementation is progressing. As I made clear at the beginning of my contribution, in our view this legislation is welcome, and I am pleased that the UK is involving itself fully in the process of working actively and publicly to enforce human rights law. As a nation with influence, we need to send a clear signal that we are ready, willing and able to bring alleged perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity to justice. This Bill allows us to do just that.
Time
14:55
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)Africa is blessed with an amazing range of natural resources; Africa is cursed by an amazing range of natural resources…
Speaker
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)Conservative
Quote
Africa is blessed with an amazing range of natural resources; Africa is cursed by an amazing range of natural resources. Sierra Leone is blessed with an amazing range of natural resources; Sierra Leone is cursed by an amazing range of natural resources. Sierra Leone is blessed with the possession of diamonds; Sierra Leone is cursed by possessing diamonds—and it is diamonds that started the story that results in our being here in this Chamber on this June Wednesday afternoon debating this issue. This was not an outbreak of spontaneous, longstanding barbarity. There was a rational mind behind the acts of barbarity that happened in Sierra Leone. People wanted to control diamonds and the wealth that comes from them. There is a story that has yet to be told about how diamonds from Sierra Leone came to fund, in part, the 9/11 atrocities perpetrated by al-Qaeda. When the US and other intelligence forces tried to identify where the money had come from, they found it difficult to do so. The reasonable inference that was eventually drawn was that much of the funding came from diamonds, which are very valuable and almost impossible to trace. It was the desire to control diamonds that caused Charles Taylor and others to provoke the West Side Boys, the Revolutionary United Front and others to commit the atrocities that they did in Sierra Leone. The hon. Member for Crosby ((Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) spoke movingly of the effect and impact on the victims. People were asked whether they were left-handed or right-handed and, depending on the answer they gave, one or other arm was hacked off with a machete. I am glad to say that in the court it has been accepted, for the first time, that suborning children to perpetrate acts of barbarity is an international criminal offence. There is another issue that needs to be cleared up if we are not to get confused about this issue. Left to themselves, the Sierra Leoneans probably did not want an international tribunal. Let it not be forgotten that Hinga Norman was seen by many in Freetown as a saviour of Freetown. He was on the Government side. Left to his own devices, President Kabbah would probably have followed the example of South Africa and had a truth and reconciliation commission. However, it was important for the international community to have closure on the issue and, not least, to bring Charles Taylor to trial and make the point that even heads of state are not immune from international law. Nor was the international community going to allow the natural resources of Africa to be plundered by terrorists and those wishing to perpetrate acts of terrorism throughout the world. A compromise was achieved, and it is important that we understand that it was a compromise between President Kabbah, the Government of Sierra Leone and the international community, in which the somewhat curious hybrid body of the Special Court for Sierra Leone was established by treaty with the United Nations. President Kabbah was happy to do that and indeed he had himself had a distinguished career at the United Nations. There may have been some confusion as to whether the courts are best conducted locally—in the country where the offences were committed—or at the ICC in The Hague. We have to decide whether we wish to promote the ICC or whether the trials should take place in the country where the offences took place. That happened with Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and we are about to take a decision about Lebanon. If we want to give credibility to the ICC, it needs all the support it can get. I suspect that there will be comparatively few circumstances in which we see a hybrid court, such as that for Sierra Leone; Cambodia is another example. I did not mean to be as testy as I was with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and I am sorry if I sounded uncharacteristically bad-tempered. It is rare for me to support Government Front Benchers, but on this occasion I wish to support the Foreign Office, because it and the Prime Minister have been extraordinarily good on this issue. The Special Court was established under the auspices of the UN, but it did little to fund it. The costs included setting up the court, running the prison and the funding for the prosecution and defence, as well as the funds needed for the staff who went out into the bush investigating, interrogating and taking witness statements, often with translation required. Those were not inconsiderable and, as the hon. Member for Crosby made clear, Professor David Crane and Desmond da Silva QC—now Sir Desmond—had to spend much time going to Washington to say that they were running out of money. That is not a criticism of the Government and the Foreign Office, but one cannot run international courts on that basis. It seemed somewhat cack-handed of the Secretary-General of the UN to send his own person to investigate a court and for that person to return to say that the court needed more money. The Secretary-General should know that, and should ask other members of the Security Council to put their hands in their pockets to support the court if they believe in international law and order. Otherwise, whenever we come to a similar situation, we will react in the same ad hoc fashion. We cannot have a system of international law that operates like that. The trials take so long because the system is ad hoc. Every time a tribunal is set up, the first six months to a year is taken up with the court justifying its jurisdiction. Every jurisdictional point possible is made by the defence to try to prove that the court has no authority to hear the case. We must put a system of international law in place that is respected, well funded and certain. It is possible, in the fullness of time, that the ICC will arraign before it people from Sudan in relation to Darfur. It would be ludicrous to spend the first two years of any such hearings arguing about the jurisdiction of the court. It would be crazy if in every prosecution at the Old Bailey days were spent on arguing whether the judges there had the right to hear cases. We have to move on. I direct those comments not at those on the Treasury Bench, but at the whole international community. It is in the interests of that international community that evil men do not seek to control resources in Africa and use the funds from those resources for acts of evil. This issue is unfinished business for all of us. When the Prime Minister reported back from the G8 summit on Monday, he said: “In addition, the G8 committed itself to identifying, agreeing and supporting lasting solutions to the financing of peacekeeping missions in Africa.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 515.] As I have said, I think that what the UK Government did in Sierra Leone was brilliant and the high commissioner at the time, Peter Penfold, and others deserve much credit. However, it was a unilateral decision by the UK, which is one of the very few countries in the world that has the lift capacity and the professionalism to put people in to undertake such an operation. The international community as a whole will have to work out how it will finance and operate peacekeeping missions. I am sure that everyone has been following the tragedy of Darfur, but there has been an African Union mission and a UN mission, and we now have a hybrid mission. We have been trying to find a structure that works, but we need to have one in place before a tragedy happens, and not after. Lastly, I endorse what the Secretary of State for International Development said at the end of our Darfur debate last week. It was a very powerful speech, and we all ought to endorse it. He asked: “When are we going to live up to the fine and inspiring words of the UN declaration of human rights?”—[Official Report, 5 June 2007; Vol. 461,c. 228.] He went on to quote from the declaration, which states: ‘Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people… Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” The poorest countries of the world, including Sierra Leone, have the right to life, liberty and security of person. The message that the Special Court sends out is that those most responsible for crimes against humanity will be brought to book, prosecuted and sentenced. My final observation is that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Crosby. People who are found guilty of crimes against humanity of this kind should be sentenced to life, and that should mean that they remain in prison for the rest of their lives.
Time
15:08
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD)First, I apologise to the Minister and his opposite number for not being present to hear all of their speeches. I watch…
Speaker
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Quote
First, I apologise to the Minister and his opposite number for not being present to hear all of their speeches. I watched some of the debate as I was carrying out other duties in the House, but I wanted to contribute a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) and other colleagues. At probably every weekly surgery over the past 10 years I have had to deal with the problems suffered by people originally from Sierra Leone. They still come, even now—either people whom I have never met before or those whose cases I have been dealing with. Their family histories contain the same story that other speakers have set out. Asked if their parents are alive, they say no, they were killed in the civil war, and the same is very often true of their brothers and sisters. Some of the stories are even worse, involving rapes, attacks, and the brutal removal of limbs as a matter of course. People who did not immediately agree with the war had their arms or legs hacked off by machete, so even if I had not followed the story as a Member of Parliament, I would have had no choice but to take a concerned interest in what was going on in Sierra Leone. I visited Sierra Leone a few years ago, and hope to go back again later this year. On my visit, I learned that of all the countries that I have been to, Sierra Leone is the one that feels itself most close to Britain. It has a love for and a commitment to Britain, so it is absolutely right that our Government, fuelled by the conviction of the Prime Minister, decided to intervene when things were at their terrible worst. The sense of rescue when British troops arrived engendered a huge amount of joy and encouragement in the people of Sierra Leone, and across the country as a whole, regardless of party affiliation or region. The decision to go in was right, as was the decision to continue our specific interests. Also, Britain was right to decide to help bring about the end of the civil war, and to support the initiative of the democratically elected President of Sierra Leone to hold an international tribunal. I have long considered that international law is no good if it is used only to resolve public disputes about boundaries, or sea lanes between continents, and so on. International law must also deal with international criminal activity, so I and my party have believed for many years that the ICC is a fundamental element of the post-war new order. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) reminded us, it gives the world an opportunity to implement the principles of the UN. It is no good telling people that we stand for their liberty if no mechanism exists for dealing with leaders of countries who do not recognise the liberty of others. It is obvious that President Taylor and others crossed Sierra Leone’s border with Liberia because of diamonds. The appropriateness of borders left as a colonial legacy is still a cause for argument in Africa, but there is no doubt that the people of Sierra Leone were not able to defend their country’s border with Liberia. As a result, there was an open invitation for people to cross the border to pillage and rape the country of its wealth, and that is what they did. Going into another country without permission, authority or endorsement and supporting civil opposition to the elected Government is an international crime that deserves to be punished. The arrest of Charles Taylor is entirely justified, as is the fact that he is now facing trial. We can have a debate about where that trial should be held, as the hon. Member for Banbury noted. He reminded us that that problem will always remain unresolved. Logic suggests that any trial should be held in an international centre that has the organisation, equipment and services to handle it. However, a trial is no good if it is not backed up by the resources needed to sustain it, and that is a principal responsibility of the UN. That holds true even in cases such as this, which are, as it were, a specially arranged adjunct to the process of international law by treaty agreement, as opposed to a straightforward implementation of the ICC. I have three other points to make. Sierra Leone is a peace-loving country, and its people are very gentle but, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) reminded us, it is still bottom but one in the world’s poverty league table. A foreign leader intervened to terrible effect in its affairs, and the Sierra Leonean community, both at home and abroad, wants the matter to be seen through to a conclusion. That must happen so that well-meaning and community-minded citizens of Sierra Leone around the world can believe that their still extremely fragile democracy will be safe. The process of this year’s general election in Sierra Leone will be no easier than the previous election. President Kabbah is not standing again, so there will be a new president. Some families have a dynastic interest, as is to be expected, but I am really encouraged by the fact that the Liberal Democrat group on my borough council contains two Sierra Leoneans who support different parties in their home country. That shows that there will be a democratic election in a country which both had to leave because of the tyranny there. That is a real sign of hope and an encouragement of democracy and the things that go with it. I want to add to the support for the change proposed in the Bill by making a plea to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Departments that they continue to support effectively organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, so that the delicate democracies of countries such as Sierra Leone can continue to be supported and are never again put at risk by any intervening external power. I pay tribute in passing to Peter Penfold, an extremely eminent former high commissioner to Sierra Leone, who has continued his much appreciated interest in the country. In my borough, we have Derek Partridge—another much appreciated former high commissioner to Sierra Leone—who, like all our senior diplomats there, did a fantastic job in supporting the local community. I was reminded of the first of my final two points when I went the other day to a Sierra Leone fellowship event at the now full Methodist church in Bermondsey. Why is it full? It is because the congregation, which was relatively depleted 10 or 15 years ago, has huge numbers of west Africans, who are now in this country and replenishing our churches and many of our mosques. They are hugely committed to citizenship and participation. If people ever want role models of family life, community participation and engagement, they should look at the Sierra Leonean community both at home and here. However, in that support for Sierra Leone, the prayers for the country and the celebration of its beautiful country and prospects, there was the continuing wish and prayer that there should be continuing support beyond the trial and whatever happens to Charles Taylor. The commitment that we made was not one that should finish even at the end of the criminal process. It is great that there is that process—it is right—but it is not the end. That is not a plea for never-ending funds from the United Kingdom, although it is a plea for continuing support. It is a plea that the Commonwealth do its bit, that the neighbouring richer states in west Africa do their bit and that we continue to ensure that that country can put that terrible conclusion behind it.
Time
15:21
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasI do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that UN force representatives—the international military advisory and…
Speaker
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasLabour
Quote
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that UN force representatives—the international military advisory and training team, or IMATT forces—have agreed and have support to remain in the country until 2015, to address the very concerns that he has expressed and to send a very loud signal to individuals in the surrounding countryside that the country is safe and protected.
Time
15:21
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Simon HughesI do know that, and that is a very strong message of, “We will recognise your independence and support it, but we will…
Speaker
Simon HughesLiberal Democrat
Quote
I do know that, and that is a very strong message of, “We will recognise your independence and support it, but we will continue to be an ally, a supporter and a practical aid in all sorts of ways for as long as you need and want it.” My judgment is that the country will continue to want it for a long time. My last point is that the Bill is about a change that will allow us in this country to take another bit of international responsibility by imprisoning Charles Taylor if he is convicted. That is absolutely right and it is a very welcome initiative, but I take the view that, for people who are convicted of the sort of crimes that are on the indictment, there can be no conclusion other than that they serve their natural life in prison. No other message is acceptable. Heads of State, whether they get there by democratic election or by other means—in this case, other means were used—have a higher responsibility than anyone else to set a good example. Therefore, if they are responsible indirectly for the death, injury and rape of so many people by those under their control, they must pay the price. In a world where capital punishment is not generally regarded as an acceptable price to pay any more, the sentence should be life imprisonment, which means life imprisonment. Then, bluntly, the difficult question of asylum and what happens on release does not arise. That has a cost implication for the United Kingdom, as set out in the papers connected with the Bill, but if that is the price that we must pay, not just as our contribution to Sierra Leone but to send the message to the international community that the international rule of law will be followed by heads of state and that they will pay the price if they do not follow it, it is a price that I hope every taxpayer will think is worth paying.
Time
15:21
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsWith the leave of the House, I should very much like to thank all those hon. Members who have taken part in Second Read…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
With the leave of the House, I should very much like to thank all those hon. Members who have taken part in Second Reading. We have been privileged to have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and the hon. Members for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) testimonies and analyses that are formed only from great and committed experience and sustained interest, and we are the richer for that. I welcome the strong support expressed for the substance of the Bill and, more importantly, for the commitment both to international justice and Sierra Leone that the Bill represents. I shall try my best to address the points that hon. Members have made. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), whose contribution I welcome very much, asked how much this would cost. That point was also raised by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. I can confirm that if Taylor were convicted by the Special Court and imprisoned in the United Kingdom, the annual cost to the Prison Service would be the same as the annual cost of holding one prisoner in the high security estate, which in 2005-06 was £43,904. If this individual is imprisoned in Britain and held for a very long time—for his lifetime—the bill will be large, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey that it is a price worth paying. We would meet the cost—the hon. Member for Cotswold asked a question about this—because that is in line with established policy for commitments arising from sentence enforcement agreements with international criminal tribunals. It is preferable for the United Kingdom to meet the costs associated with prisoners inside the United Kingdom system—they are under our control—rather than agreeing to take on a more general, and possibly greater, financial commitment to contribute to the costs of those imprisoned in other states who are not under our control. The cost would be borne by the Home Office; the Foreign Office does not possess such sums. Of course, I cannot speculate about the conviction—nor would the hon. Gentleman want me to—or the length of the sentence. That is strictly a matter for the court. The hon. Member for Cotswold and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) asked about the funding of the defence costs. Clearly, it is for the court to decide how to allocate its resources. The hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned that the United Kingdom has already allocated £2 million to the court and the court will have to decide how to allocate that. I want to relate these points to the important observation made by the hon. Member for Banbury. I will come to that a little later, when I talk about where the money should come from. It is an important matter. I fully expect former President Taylor to receive a fair trial. The Special Court for Sierra Leone has been established in accordance with international norms as they relate to all aspects of trial proceedings. I know that Lord Avebury expressed some reservations, but I do not think that they were about whether Taylor would get a fair trial. When Lord Avebury spoke in another place, he was worried about the remoteness of the trial. The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about complaints from Taylor and his defence team about inadequate resources. This may sound brutal, but I am merely reflecting what the hon. Member for Banbury said: the funding for Taylor’s defence is a matter for Taylor, his lawyers and the court. It is of course essential that the defence is adequately resourced to ensure that Taylor is well represented and that the trial is fair and seen to be fair. Ultimately, those are decisions for the court. The United Kingdom is absolutely committed to ensuring that overall the court has the resources to carry out its vital work in accordance with accepted international norms. As I have said, I cannot predict with any accuracy how long the trial will last and therefore what the ultimate cost will be. That depends on the approach adopted by the prosecution, by Taylor’s defence and by the judges. I understand that, for planning purposes, the court’s completion strategy has projected that the trial of the former President could last 18 months. The hon. Member for Cotswold and the hon. Member for Cheadle asked an important question about asylum applications subsequent to any release of former President Taylor. Clearly any decision would be made in the light of the circumstances at the time, but if Taylor were convicted by the Special Court, served a sentence in the United Kingdom and was then released, I expect that he would leave the United Kingdom or face removal. Under current immigration law it is open to the Home Secretary to order the deportation of any non-British citizen whose removal from the United Kingdom is deemed to be conducive to the public good. Any asylum claim would be considered in accordance with the refugee convention, which contains provisions to refuse asylum to those involved in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. I want to clarify the position. The hon. Member for Cotswold is on to something. Where a convicted criminal is transferred to the UK to serve a sentence, it is Home Office policy to refuse that individual leave to enter, but to grant temporary admission for the duration of the sentence. That ensures that residency rights and benefits do not accrue to the individual as a result of imprisonment in the UK. That point needs making. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby gave us, as has been acknowledged throughout the House, a valuable and vivid account of the hell that was Freetown and Waterloo in Sierra Leone. Her contribution made us feel more determined than ever, as the hon. Member for Banbury put it, to send out a clear, unambiguous message that there will be no impunity and no escape for those dreadful war criminals. She also gave us a description of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its limited facilities which I found invaluable in assessing the wisdom or otherwise of holding a trial of someone as central as Charles Taylor has been to the appalling atrocities that we heard about. My hon. Friend reminded us not only of the vileness of the crimes that were committed, but of the danger that Taylor continues to present to the people of Sierra Leone, Liberia and that part of Africa, and of the vulnerability of the facilities in that area. We could not have got that from anyone else, and I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for telling us about it. My hon. Friend asked me where Taylor should be held. She can try to second-guess, but I will not. We must not get ahead of ourselves. There is a presumption of innocence. The trial has yet to be held. Conditions and location of detention will be purely hypothetical until we need to make those decisions. We will not speculate on that until the decisions are made. The hon. Member for Cheadle asked about the Cassese report. I remind him that Judge Cassese came in at our instigation and our representation. The UK was represented on the court’s management team in New York that commissioned the report by Judge Cassese, the independent expert. We welcome the report and its recommendations. The management committee is supervising the implementation of the recommendations in consultation with the court. As the hon. Member for Banbury made clear, the report rightly draws attention to the need for long-term financial security for the court. The recent United Kingdom contribution of £2 million is another step forward. We are pressing management committee partners and other states to make further contributions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the present management committee partners include, but not exclusively, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Dutch, Canada, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs. We are pressing hard to ensure that adequate funding comes forward. I was asked by a number of Members about what happens when the Special Court winds up. In the event that the court has ceased to exist in its current form owing to the completion of its trial load, judicial responsibility will pass to a designated successor body. Discussion has already taken place about an international successor body to take on the residual functions of the Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone tribunals once their work is mostly complete. I shall come back to that to deal specifically with what the hon. Member for Banbury called the problem of ad hocery. That is very difficult for a Welshman to say. I was asked by the hon. Member for Cheadle whether the trial would be too remote from ordinary Sierra Leoneans. We thought long and hard about that. It is essential that, despite the physical distance, the Special Court’s proceedings in The Hague are accessible and relevant to the people of Sierra Leone. After all, it is in their name that justice is being done.
Time
15:33
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasAs a matter of interest, I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to know that the proceedings in the Special Court are…
Speaker
Mrs. Curtis-ThomasLabour
Quote
As a matter of interest, I am sure that my hon. Friend would like to know that the proceedings in the Special Court are downloaded on to the web every day. There are cafés throughout Freetown and the rest of the country where people can go to see what is happening.
Time
15:33
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsThat saves me reading out a paragraph of my briefing. It is an important point. I am sure that the hon. Member for Nort…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
That saves me reading out a paragraph of my briefing. It is an important point. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey will welcome the fact that the Special Court has an outreach and education programme, which is recognised as a model from which other international criminal tribunals can learn. As well as our support for the court’s outreach programme, the United Kingdom is contributing £160,000 to a major BBC World Service Trust project that feeds the outlets to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby has referred, and that develops, deploys and supports a team of six Liberians and Sierra Leonean journalists to cover the court proceedings from The Hague. I know that hon. Members will welcome that. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Banbury for mentioning the curse of the diamond trade. He knows this, but Sierra Leone has been working hard to achieve Kimberley process certification. It remains a fragile region and the UK is working hard with Sierra Leone to ensure that progress is maintained, including in preventing conflict diamonds from entering Sierra Leone from Côte d’Ivoire. As I said, the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to the curse of ad hocery. He is right that we have to get the structure and system of international law properly organised and funded. The international community must tackle that project with much greater urgency and determination than it has shown until now. You would not, Madam Deputy Speaker, allow me to stray from the content of the Bill, but that should be one of the centrepieces of the reform of the secretariat and of the operation of the United Nations. The lack of reform has been nothing less than a scandal. So often one wonders why countries that seem to be the ones that would benefit most from that reform are those which oppose it. I think that it has everything to do with corruption and with the disgraceful behaviour that we have seen in the past from the leaders of those countries. The United Kingdom Government, with the support of the House, have argued long and hard for much greater reform of the United Nations, of its secretariat and indeed of the priority that it gives to such issues. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said, international law is much the poorer if it does not have a chapter that is effective, robust and able to try international criminals—not in an ad hoc way but in an organised way. I could not agree more. I have heard the message of the hon. Member for Banbury and I will try my best to ensure that the United Nations secretariat hears it, too.
Time
15:33
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Simon HughesI completely agree with the Minister’s strong statements about the need for the United Nations to put a proper permanen…
Speaker
Simon HughesLiberal Democrat
Quote
I completely agree with the Minister’s strong statements about the need for the United Nations to put a proper permanent structure in place. Not just countries such as Sierra Leone, but Liberia, which has had a fantastic transformation and has elected the first African woman President, need the security of knowing that, if anyone tried to take them back to a military regime and a system with no democracy, there would be somewhere where they would have to pay the price.
Time
15:33
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsAbsolutely; that is an important point. In fact, the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cro…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
Absolutely; that is an important point. In fact, the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, the hope that Sierra Leone’s neighbours would help with the vital tasks of building capacity in governance. That is very important. If the forthcoming elections in July do not succeed, Sierra Leone faces great problems. We view credible elections as crucial in consolidating post-conflict peace and stability. The United Kingdom has committed £4 million to the UN Development Programme fund, which finances the national election commission. In addition, the UK is implementing a £2.5 million programme of electoral support that will, among other things, strengthen the capacity of national and local media to cover the elections. That is very important, too. We are supporting election monitoring, which must be in place for those elections. I cannot comment on the plea by the hon. Members for North Southwark and Bermondsey and for Banbury that a life sentence should mean a life sentence. We cannot get ahead of ourselves. This must be seen to be a proper and fair trial, and it is up to the court to make those decisions. I know what my own preferences are, but I will not air them here. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, it is not sufficient for us to speak of our support for international justice—we must act in support of it. That is what the Bill does, and I strongly commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day]. [Sylvia Heal in the Chair] Clause 1 The Special Court for Sierra Leone Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Time
15:33
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsClause 1 inserts a new section into the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to confer a power to make provision by Or…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
Clause 1 inserts a new section into the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to confer a power to make provision by Order in Council in relation to the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The provision that may be made corresponds to that made in section 77(3) of the 2001 Act, which relates to the enforcement of sentences of imprisonment. The power in the clause will extend only to England and Wales. That is not because of any reluctance on the part of the Scottish Administration, but because we do not judge it necessary. Because it will extend only to England and Wales, and because some of the provisions of the 2001 Act mentioned in section 77(3) extend to other parts of the UK, it is made clear that an order can only make provisions corresponding to the 2001 Act provisions in so far as they apply to England and Wales. Clause 2 specifies that the Bill extends to England and Wales only.
Time
15:52
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownAs we are dealing with a hypothetical situation involving an Order in Council, it is right to ask one or two questions…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
As we are dealing with a hypothetical situation involving an Order in Council, it is right to ask one or two questions about what it might contain. What costs will be involved in the provisions? The Minister mentioned enforcement costs. Will those relate strictly to the costs of imprisonment in this country, or will there be any connected costs in relation to legal representations—for example, if an appeal were mounted when the person was imprisoned? On Second Reading, I asked the Minister to comment on what powers the Special Court would have and on what matters the UK would decide. Can he confirm that the sentence may be varied only by the properly constituted Special Court or its successor? Will that also cover such matters as early release? What will be the handover arrangements from the Special Court? What sort of prison is the prisoner likely to be held in, if convicted? That is another matter that will have to be handled in the Order in Council. What arrangements would be made in an emergency medical situation? Those few questions are all that I have at this stage.
Time
15:52
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsThe Government do not envisage any extra costs arising. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are matters for the S…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
The Government do not envisage any extra costs arising. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are matters for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, which sits in The Hague, not for the British Government. The prisoner would be held in part of the high- security estate of the English and Welsh prison system. The hon. Gentleman asked about the transfer of prisoners. That would be done in the normal way. He knows about the normal procedure: in general, experienced prison officers would go to the airport where the transfer of prisoners took place. In the case that we are considering, the airport would probably be Schiphol. They would proceed in the normal way to take charge of the prisoner and take him on to the aircraft that would return him to the United Kingdom. That happens every week—or rather, I assume that it happens every week; it certainly happens often. I do not envisage any problem with that. The hon. Gentleman also asked about delegated power, which is important, but I shall try to tackle it briefly. The Bill provides for a delegated power because its exercise will depend on the successful conclusion of a sentence enforcement agreement with the Special Court. We have no proposal for an Order in Council until such an agreement has been reached. No particular difficulty with the agreement is envisaged, but the Government do not propose to conclude it until Parliament has granted the necessary powers. Orders in Council will be laid before Parliament after being made. That follows the precedent under the United Nations Act 1946. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
Time
15:52
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownMay I say to the Minister, “Almost”? He has not quite clarified what matters the UK authorities will decide, what the c…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
May I say to the Minister, “Almost”? He has not quite clarified what matters the UK authorities will decide, what the court will determine and what the special imprisonment enforcement agreement will cover. On early release, downgrading prison security to low security, emergency medical treatment and conditions for release at the end of the sentence, which matters will be for the UK authorities to decide and which will be for the Special Court? Will a Special Court have to be convened every time a significant event occurs in the sentence? How will the mechanism work?
Time
15:52
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsI am sorry that I did not answer all the questions—I could not write fast enough. The Special Court or its successor bo…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
I am sorry that I did not answer all the questions—I could not write fast enough. The Special Court or its successor body will have to make any decisions on early release. There will be no financial cost to this country as a consequence of those decisions other than the cost of keeping Charles Taylor in prison if he is found guilty and if the court decides that he will be imprisoned in this country. If the Special Court convicted Charles Taylor and he was imprisoned in the UK, there would be no role for the UK courts. That is important. Under sentence enforcement agreements with international criminal tribunals, the role of the imprisoning state is simply to implement the sentence imposed by the tribunal, which retains responsibility for all decisions about appeal, revision or reduction. The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if the Special Court were wound up. Let us consider the event of the court ceasing to exist in its current form. As I tried to explain earlier, for the completion of its current trial load, judicial responsibility will pass to a designated successor body. Discussion is already taking place on the form that it should take. He also asked about what would happen if something happened to the prisoner while he was in prison—illness, for example. I have been reliably informed that he would be dealt with in the same way as any other high-security prisoner. Indeed, he would be dealt with just like any other high-security prisoner in every respect. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Time
15:52
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Mr. Clifton-BrownI have just one more question for the Minister, because it is important to get these matters on the record. If a high-s…
Speaker
Mr. Clifton-BrownConservative
Quote
I have just one more question for the Minister, because it is important to get these matters on the record. If a high-security prisoner were imprisoned in one of Her Majesty’s prisons in this country, the prison governor would be able to decide on a number of minor procedures—for example, curtailment of visitor rights for non-co-operative behaviour. Will the Minister confirm that the same regime would apply to Charles Taylor?
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Dr. HowellsYes, if Taylor were convicted by the Special Court and imprisoned in the UK, I can confirm that that would apply. Shoul…
Speaker
Dr. HowellsLabour
Quote
Yes, if Taylor were convicted by the Special Court and imprisoned in the UK, I can confirm that that would apply. Should his family wish to visit him here, for example, they could apply for leave to enter as visitors in accordance with normal immigration procedures. The day-to-day administration of the prison and the prisoner would have to be in the hands of the governor. He would act within the rules and norms laid down for the Prison Service, which would have been made clear to the Special Court for Sierra Leone prior to the trial—and indeed if questions were asked during the course of the trial—providing absolute transparency on the conditions under which Charles Taylor would be held if he were convicted and sent to a British prison. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without amendment. Bill read the Third time, and passed. EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees), Simplification of Legislation on Transport Rates and Food Hygiene That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7371/07 and Addenda 1 to 4, Draft Regulation amending Regulation No. 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs; and supports the Government’s view that attempts to reduce administrative burdens on food businesses are to be welcomed, but should not compromise public health protection.—[Mr. Cawsey.] Question agreed to.
Time
16:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗

Show 45 more speechesShow less

EnactedInternational Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Act 2007