| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): Following that line of logic, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how it is that, with a permanent under-secretary of considerable experience, probity and efficiency--as witnessed by Ministers from the previous Government and other observers--the Foreign Office is such a toy-town organisation? I find that incredible, and it seems that the permanent under-secretary is acting as an air-raid shelter for Ministers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that we should not debate the leak. That is for another time.
Mr. Campbell: That was a timely and helpful intervention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Committee addresses that matter, and has views on it. The Committee considered the evidence in detail and reached a conclusion. I was not present throughout the consideration by the Committee and, therefore, I am not willing to substitute my judgment for that of the Committee.
It is time to blow away the fog of obscurity surrounding arms exports. It is time to have a Select Committee of the House to monitor arms export policy and, if necessary, to scrutinise individual transactions. It is time to provide for an international means of dealing with arms brokering in defiance of UN resolutions. It is time to provide that a transaction involving a transfer from anywhere in the world to anywhere else in the world would be illegal if it would be illegal for those arms to be transferred from the UK.
We ought to be willing to consider extra-territorial jurisdiction in this matter, because it makes a nonsense of UN resolutions--and the way in which they are imported into our domestic law--if, as in the present case, arms
transferred from Bulgaria to Sierra Leone at the instigation of a broker based in the UK would not, apparently, constitute a breach of criminal law.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the reports had not directly criticised Ministers. Does he agree with the verdict of the Select Committee report that
Mr. Campbell:
That is the conclusion of the Committee, and I see no reason to substitute my judgment for its judgment. I go further--one would have expected Ministers to be on their inquiry. I go back to the fact that Sierra Leone was not some country of which we knew little. It was a country in which No. 10 Downing street was taking an express interest, at the instigation, quite rightly, of the Prime Minister--all the more reason for Ministers to be on their inquiry.
All of that produced for the people of Sierra Leone nothing but the lasting horrors of a civil war of utmost brutality, which is still being visited upon the population of that benighted country. That is why I have urged the Government before today to ensure that they continue to provide logistical assistance to President Kabbah, following the statement that the Secretary of State made in the House on 19 January.
The Government should work with the Commonwealth and the United Nations to ensure that Nigeria does not become so disillusioned with its role in Sierra Leone that it pulls its personnel out of the ECOMOG forces. The recent election in Nigeria must surely throw that matter into sharp focus. The Government should bring all possible pressure to bear on the Government in Liberia to cause them to cease to interfere in the internal affairs of Sierra Leone. We should be making plans now for the rebuilding of Freetown's damaged infrastructure, and providing support for development programmes in the region and emergency relief.
Coincidentally, the Foreign Secretary came today with £10 million in his pocket. I am delighted that he brought that money. It is only a little more than the $10 million that Sandline was to gain for providing support to President Kabbah. Of course £10 million is better than nothing, but what effect will it have on the devastation from which we now know Sierra Leone is suffering?
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
I have three initial reflections. First, the backcloth is the agony and suffering of the people of Sierra Leone. That should be our main concern. Against that agony and suffering, the ambit of the Foreign Affairs Committee report is relatively insignificant. The people of Sierra Leone and the friends of that Commonwealth country would be
Secondly, the prospect of the debate becoming a party game is part of the problem that we face in a Select Committee in a highly partisan and personalised political structure. Select Committees act as Committees of the legislature monitoring the Executive. There is clearly great pressure on Committee members not to score own goals and to support their own side, particularly on a matter such as this. Since May last year, the debate in the Chamber has become highly partisan, and it seemed that those on the Opposition Front Bench were trying to dress it up as if it were a replay of the arms to Iraq scandal.
However, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, that was light years away. The Government at that time deliberately misled the House on a change of policy and were even prepared to countenance the imprisonment of business men to cover up their own failings.
Mr. Anderson:
It is true. I invite the hon. Gentleman to examine the history of the Scott report and the conduct of the Conservative Government at that time.
The highest the charge can be put in this case is that the Government allowed, or connived at, the action of a British company to supply a quantity of arms to an elected and internationally recognised head of state of a friendly Commonwealth country who had been ousted in a coup by a motley group of rebels.
The House hardly needs to be reminded of the arms to Iraq scandal and of the role played by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at that time. I suspect that the Opposition thought that they had struck gold with Sierra Leone, and that they would be able to find the Foreign Secretary's fingerprints on some form of conspiracy. Those who had not been conspicuous in their concern for Sierra Leone, either before or after the sad events and the suffering there, seized on an apparent opportunity to embarrass the Secretary of State as he sought to help to stabilise that benighted country.
My final preliminary point relates to the leak. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning agreed its first special report on the premature disclosure of the report on Sierra Leone. I congratulate the Committee's staff on ensuring that the special report is available in the Vote Office so that hon. Members may peruse it.
There is sadness that there was a leak. I trust that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges will consider the substantial mitigation offered after the event by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). The leak is a warning to every hon. Member of the seriousness of those matters, particularly when it comes to the leaking of a draft report on which a Government who were so inclined might seek to pressurise members of a Select Committee to moderate their views.
I commend the work of the Foreign Affairs Committee's staff on the original report. They worked long and hard in difficult circumstances. Hon. Members
will know that two thirds or more of the report deals with the substance of the arms to Sierra Leone affair. The last part of the report deals more generally with relations between the Executive and the legislature, which, inmy judgment, are of general importance to Select Committees.
I shall outline the background of the events relating to the supply of arms. The terms of reference of the Foreign Affairs Committee were: first, to examine whether
"many of problems which occurred would not have occurred . . . If ministers had made their policy on dealings with mercenaries clearer to officials".
Does he agree that, in that sense, Ministers are culpable?
"actions by Government personnel in relation to Sierra Leone after"
the ousting of President Kabbah on
"25 May 1997 were consistent with implementation of the Government's policy that"
President Kabbah should be restored only
"by peaceful means; and, whether deficiencies have been revealed in the arrangements in the FCO for passing information to Ministers and implementing their instructions."
Was there a conspiracy? There is not, in the phrase initially used in the report, a scintilla of evidence to suggest that the Foreign Secretary knew that there was a potential breach of the arms embargo. Try as anyone might to find the fingerprints of the Foreign Secretary, or any knowledge on his part, there is no evidence to that end.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |