| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.52 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Into my constituency advice bureau a couple of weeks ago came a woman--a British
resident, who is from Sierra Leone. She told me a story about her husband, who had custody of their two children and was living in Sierra Leone. It was reported that he had been found on the streets of Freetown with his stomach shot out. He was alive and taken to hospital, but subsequently died. Obviously, her concern was a human one, and my concern for her, as my constituent, was a human one.
Another constituent received news recently of his two daughters in Sierra Leone. One, aged 15, and her aunt--who was looking after her--were the victims of a mass rape by members of the junta. She was then physically abused. The other sister is now missing in that country, and there is no trace of her. I can tell the House many stories of similar atrocities.
The Opposition claimed to talk about Sierra Leone today. However, the shadow Foreign Secretary--in a speech of nearly 20 minutes--spent a little over one minute on the issue of Sierra Leone. That is simply not doing justice to this House, or to any concept of British foreign policy.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the Opposition would support the Government on those occasions when our policy was designed to relieve human suffering. However, in the years between the coup taking place in Sierra Leone and President Kabbah moving back to Sierra Leone, no questions were tabled by the official Opposition--except for one, tabled by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley). I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on speaking for the whole Conservative party for all that time.
As no party politics were involved, the shadow Foreign Secretary had no policy at all. That is the reality. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to come to the Dispatch Box any time during my speech--but with this proviso. Will he make clear why his party tabled one question relating to policy specific to Sierra Leone, and many questions on matters of purely party political interest? Will he also say whether he endorses the views of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt)--who, at least, spoke a little about Sierra Leone?
Sadly, the hon. Member for Reigate talked entirely about supporting the role of mercenaries. Does the policy of the Conservative party, now it is in opposition, depend on the espousal of the use of mercenaries--people who have destroyed Sierra Leone and parts of west Africa; ripped the diamonds out of that area; killed those whom they are paid to kill; and worked on either side?
Mr. Keith Simpson:
Disgraceful!
Mr. Lloyd:
The hon. Gentleman is quite right--it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that the hon. Member for Reigate could make such a speech in this House.
During their period of control of Sierra Leone the rebels received no condemnation from the Opposition. Now, when they have been fighting a bitter campaign--abusing and maiming citizens--no criticism has been made in public by the Opposition. Does that not matter to the shadow Foreign Secretary? Does it not matter to the Opposition? During this debate, Conservative Members have, in total, spoken for well over an hour. Comments relating to Sierra Leone have totalled a little over seven minutes. That is what they are reduced to.
I normally admire the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), but he dwelt very little on the substantive issues of Sierra Leone. I shall remember that in future when he wants to take a high moral tone.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
I am not concerned with taking a high moral tone. I repeat what I said in my speech; I have already written to the Foreign Secretary, making exactly the point about the need to deal with Sierra Leone, both now and in the future.
Mr. Tony Lloyd:
I look forward to that letter and to support from, at least, the Liberal Democrats, for our policy.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said that our policy could not succeed. When President Kabbah returned to Freetown last year, he spoke about three countries in particular which had given exemplary support to his regime, kept him going through the dark days and allowed him to return to his own country and lead a democratic Government. Britain was one of those countries--and, I must say, Nigeria was another.
When General Abacha was the military dictator in Nigeria--doing things that we could not or would not want to work alongside--there was no question of our supporting Nigerian military intervention in Sierra Leone. That ought to have been unthinkable. I make no apology for that. I make no apology for the fact that our objectives were the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone and to secure the return of the democratically elected President to Sierra Leone.
I make no apology for the fact that we did not seek to do that with the intervention of Sandline. Sandline, as numerous people have said, is an irrelevance to the issue. Sandline--quite literally--was a sideline; a political convenience for the shadow Foreign Secretary, but a total irrelevance.
Mr. Howard:
The Minister of State has told us what he is not apologising for. Will he now apologise for the answer that he gave the House on 12 March using precisely the same language as that which was described by the Foreign Secretary as quite "plainly wrong"?
Mr. Lloyd:
The shadow Foreign Secretary is hardly the person to speak about half-truths, even in his last comments. Let me make two things clear. First, I answered no questions; I made a speech. I did so when President Kabbah's Government were already reinstated in Freetown. I spoke about the role that Britain had played. I spoke, rightly, about the way in which we helped to restrict arms to the rebels. For that, I make no apology.
Secondly, let me tell the shadow Foreign Secretary something that he did not mention, although the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling seemed to know this. Not long afterwards, we were instrumental in having the Security Council resolution changed to allow the supply to the legal and democratic Government. I make no apology for that.
Mr. Howard:
Before the Security Council resolution was changed, the embargo applied to everyone connected with Sierra Leone, including President Kabbah's regime.
Will the Minister of State address that point and apologise to the House for the quite plainly wrong answer that he gave on 12 March?
Mr. Lloyd:
That has obviously been a year's work for the shadow Foreign Secretary. I know that he is a talented lawyer, but he is not a very talented shadow Foreign Secretary. Let me help him a little. He got no support from his hon. Friends in the debate, except for one other Conservative speaker.
The real question is whether the Government at any stage misled in a way that was germane. I quote the conclusion of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which stated:
Mr. Howard:
I shall try again, for the third or fourth time. It is a perfectly simple, straightforward question. The Minister of State told the House on 12 March that the embargo was aimed at the junta. The Foreign Secretary said that that language was quite "plainly wrong". He said that of language that was identical to that used by the Minister of State. Will the Minister now deal with the matter and apologise for the fact that the answer that he gave the House on 12 March was quite plainly wrong?
Mr. Lloyd:
Let me remind the shadow Foreign Secretary that I asked him to undertake to make certain comments of his own if he rose to speak at the Dispatch Box, which he signally failed to do. Nevertheless, I shall answer the question.
That statement was not wrong. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already made it clear once today that his comment was made in an entirely different context. That is the point. The shadow Foreign Secretary knows that he is dealing in half-truths. He is dealing in lawyers' words. He knows that he has no credibility outside the House when he speaks about Sierra Leone.
Mr. Lloyd:
I shall say a little about what the British Government have been trying to achieve over recent months. [Hon. Members: "Give way."] Let me tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman what we have been trying to achieve in the context of Sierra Leone.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife said that the extra £10 million was comparable to the sum that Sandline was prepared to provide. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Sandline had no moneys of its own--it would have been paid through the mineral wealth of Sierra Leone. That was no act of grace by a military organisation, but a commercial transaction to steal that country's diamonds. We had no intention of dealing with mercenaries or with the expropriation of the mineral wealth of a poor country such as Sierra Leone.
"It is the view of the Committee that Mr. Spicer should have known the law about arms sales to Sierra Leone."
The Select Committee is quite clear about that. The central charge of the shadow Foreign Secretary's case is not sustained by the report that he is praying in aid in the motion against the Government. That is how little credibility he has.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |