---

International Tribunals (Sierra Leone) Bill [Lords]

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 does its bit, that the neighbouring richer states in west Africa do their bit and that we continue to ensure that that country can put behind it that terrible conclusion.