| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend referred to the effective and limited objective. It has been the Government's position throughout to ensure that British forces were deployed in order to achieve a particular and specific objective. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made that clear in his statement. The Government's position has remained absolutely consistent.
That is why it is important that I have linked the prospect of a withdrawal of British forces to the question of an effective training team in Sierra Leone which, working on behalf of the forces of the Government of Sierra Leone, can provide appropriate advice, assistance, equipment and logistical support to carry through what I accept and agree is the much more difficult process of bringing the remainder of the country under control. British forces have contributed significantly to the very early stages of what I recognise will be a difficult process for the Government of Sierra Leone.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, despite the statement, there remains continuing anxiety about the nature, scale and length of the commitment? Does he also understand that, although we welcome statements, they are not a substitute for a full debate on a substantive motion? Will he therefore provide such a debate on our military and political commitment in Sierra Leone? Does he understand that many of us feel that the practice ought to be changed so that, whenever there is a substantial deployment of British forces overseas, the authority of this House is sought and obtained on a substantive motion?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments. I do not accept, however, that there has been the slightest anxiety about the scale of the deployment. The deployment of HMS Ocean and the Amphibious Ready Group was one matter that attracted comment, yet the reality, as I hope I have demonstrated today, is that their presence on the scene has given us the necessary flexibility to allow the changeover that I have just described.
So, notwithstanding the right hon. and learned Gentleman's anxieties, the deployment of that force--considerable, I recognise, but nevertheless one that has been used and has been useful--which simply initially contained elements in and around the airport, was a substantial undertaking. The airport area is 4 miles in radius--a significant area in which to control the activities of those who might threaten the security of the airport and landings by a variety of aircraft.
We have required a substantial force. Our forces have used it very effectively, and continue to do so. The reason for the size of the contingent was specifically to provide the flexibility of which we are now able to take advantage.
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request for a debate will have been heard by those who are responsible for such matters, and that he and his colleagues can pursue it through the usual channels.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): My right hon. Friend has restated that the British forces are acting in support of the UN mission. Does he believe that the UNAMSIL mandate is sufficiently widely drawn to allow the UNAMSIL force to be proactive in protecting civilians in Sierra Leone and in helping to build a stable civil society there?
Mr. Hoon: I am confident that the mandate is sufficiently robust to allow that. I recognise what the UN mandate is, and we continue to look carefully at it and consider whether it is in need of any improvement. We are absolutely confident at present that there is a sufficient mandate to allow UN forces to carry out the tasks for which they are responsible.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does not the permanent Joint HQ Northwood deserve warm congratulations on having put together a particularly well-balanced force, with the appropriate range of capabilities?
I should like to put to the Secretary of State the question that he did not answer on 15 May. First, who is paying for this British deployment, in the first instance to extricate British nationals? Secondly, who will pay for the further involvement: the support of the UN, logistically and otherwise, perhaps over many months; the provision of the training teams; and the provision of armaments to the army of Sierra Leone? These are very serious engagements, which may not have British popular approval for very long, particularly if they are expensive to the taxpayer.
Mr. Hoon: Ultimately, of course, it is the British taxpayer who will be responsible for meeting the cost of British forces in Sierra Leone. That has always been the position. We have armed forces to protect our immediate domestic interests, but also to operate as a force for good around the world. British taxpayers support that position, and have always done so.
As regards the UN, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that we make a regular commitment to the United Nations, and the cost of UN peacekeeping is paid for out of that.
The provision of training teams is part of a package of assistance to Sierra Leone that we announced some time ago: it is part of the continuing support that the British Government have given to Sierra Leone--support unmatched by any other country in the world.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): There have been extensive reports that the bandits are using United Nations insignia and uniforms. One of the long-established principles of war is that it is a serious offence to wear the battledress and insignia of one's adversaries. Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to discuss with others--perhaps my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary--whether there should be international measures to jealously safeguard the light-blue insignia of the United Nations, so that it would be made abundantly clear,
both in this conflict and in any other, that any infringement and abuse of United Nations insignia would be a very serious war crime?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend consistently points out details of these issues that sometimes I have not thought of. That is certainly one. I take his comments seriously, but in the context of appalling atrocities, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned, the wearing of cap badges pales into insignificance alongside the mutilation of small children.
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): Leaving aside the fact that so far the Leader of the House has rejected Opposition requests for a debate on Sierra Leone, can the Secretary of State tell the House why he did not answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery)?
Mr. Hoon: At this stage I cannot.
Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): I wish to associate myself with the congratulations to our defence forces, not just the paratroops, but the Ministry of Defence training team that I met in Freetown in March, who are doing nothing less than redesigning and recreating a democratically accountable army in Sierra Leone. On the success of its work will depend the success of the mission.
May I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)? Unless we tackle the issue of Liberia, which has supported the RUF for nine years--this is associated with control of the diamond fields--we shall not achieve the objective. I realise that my right hon. Friend cannot tell us exactly what is happening about that, but we must put every pressure on President Taylor to stop the work that he has been doing.
Mr. Hoon: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing so, but I congratulate him on putting the problems of Sierra Leone into the appropriate international and regional context. It is clearly important that we take diplomatic and political action, as well as military action, to ensure that the pressure to which he referred is successful.
Mr. John Swinney (North Tayside): In offering support for the Government's strategy in Sierra Leone and for the work of our armed forces, I would also ask the Secretary of State to give some further details to the
House on the type of supervisory role that would be envisaged for British personnel in the distribution of arms to the Sierra Leone army to guarantee that they are used to reduce conflict, not to intensify it.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point and we are considering carefully the precise circumstances in which the arms will be distributed. As I said in my statement, there will be an appropriate degree of supervision.
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): My right hon. Friend knows that when the British soldiers were attacked the other day they were with Nigerians, and the Nigerians have been working effectively alongside our armed forces in Sierra Leone. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to pass on from the House to Nigeria and the other countries in the region, as well as to India, Jordan and the other countries that have supported the UN efforts, our best wishes to all those personnel who are doing such a vital job?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to place what is happening in Sierra Leone in an appropriate regional context. The forces of Nigeria have made a tremendous contribution in the region and have sustained significant losses in the process. It is important that we pay proper tribute to the efforts that they have made and continue to make, and to the fact that they are still willing further to reinforce their contingent in Sierra Leone as a contribution to the efforts of the international community.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |