| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Does the Secretary of State agree that money from the sale of diamonds which should have been used for health and education purposes to improve the lot of Sierra Leonean citizens has instead been used to buy arms and squandered on the civil war? When will he deal with the other side of the equation and introduce legislation to control the activities of the arms trade, and arms brokers in particular?
Mr. Cook: The Department of Trade and Industry, as the hon. Lady knows, is examining introducing a Bill based on the recent consultation exercise. However, we have no evidence of any British-based broker being involved in supplying weapons to the rebels in Sierra Leone, and would happily receive any information that was provided to us on that front.
I welcome the close interest that has been shown in these exchanges about the extent to which the illicit diamond trade fuels the conflict in Sierra Leone. This will give us added strength in our representations, and I hope that the extent to which parliamentary and public interest in the matter is increasing will be of value to us in the United Nations when we seek that resolution.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): Will the Foreign Secretary join me in welcoming the highly successful operation carried out by the spearhead battalions of the Parachute and Marine Regiments? Will he also accept that there is a world of difference between mission creep involving a highly combative situation and mission creep whereby we are supplying support and logistical help to Sierra Leone? Will he, therefore, set out a programme whereby distinct objectives are to be achieved before troops training the Sierra Leonean army are withdrawn?
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to echo the hon. Gentleman's praise for the professionalism of the two units that have been involved in providing a presence in Freetown. The 1st Battalion of the Parachute Regiment deployed extremely rapidly, and very professionally
carried out an evacuation. Both it and 42 Commando have maintained a very useful presence in Sierra Leone, and have helpfully made sure that the UN presence was increased and strengthened.On the hon. Gentleman's other point, I note that the accusations of mission creep are now shading. What I announced today is not a new commitment by Britain. For a year, we have been committed to the training of the army of Sierra Leone. That will take time. The ultimate objective is to ensure that we provide a disciplined and effective fighting force for the Government of Sierra Leone, but one that will also transform the equations within Sierra Leone and is accountable to a legitimate Government.
Mr. Robert McCartney (North Down): Does the Secretary of State agree that even if the Government did not broker the Lome agreement, they have certainly endorsed it and continued to give it support? The agreement provided the rebel leader with a place in the Sierra Leonean Government and access to the diamonds which were the sinews of war. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that in brokering or supporting any other peace agreement, it would be wise to ensure that the military arm and civil power of the Government are, like the army in Sierra Leone, in tip-top condition and are maintained in that condition, and that the rebels are not allowed benefits that may ultimately result in the breakdown of an agreement, such as occurred under the Lome agreement?
Mr. Cook: I can say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that we have indeed supported the Lome agreement. Indeed, no other country has done more to try and make that peace process a reality. I think that we were right to do so and are right to continue to do so.
It was not the Lome agreement that deprived the Sierra Leonean Government of an army--it was the mutiny in 1997, in which their former army went over to make common cause with the rebels. One of the successes of Lome--and we should not lose sight of this--is that those former members of the Sierra Leonean army have come over to the Government and have been fighting on the side of the Government, not of the rebels, over the past month. That would not have been possible without the Lome agreement.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Does the Foreign Secretary accept that in this expedition, as in other recent military operations, a disproportionately heavy burden has fallen on the British armed forces by comparison with the armed forces of some of our continental friends and allies, notwithstanding their unwise commitment to the creation of a separate European security and defence identity? Given that it is our armed forces who will have to restore the situation, what negotiations has he undertaken with our continental allies to ensure that they will take up the burden of the continuing commitment in Sierra Leone, once our forces have, yet again, pulled the fat out of the fire?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's question demonstrates nothing more than his obsession with Europe. We have received much international support for
the exercise and for what we are currently doing in Sierra Leone. It is a country with which we have long historic ties. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, we continue to have long community ties with the country. It is thus perfectly reasonable for our colleagues to look to us to take the lead--just as we would look to France to take the lead in one of its former colonies.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury): Despite the Foreign Secretary's earlier dismissal of the point, I urge him to acknowledge that the UN mandate needs to be changed from a peacekeeping to a peace enforcement one, given that, at the time of the withdrawal, there is no peace to keep. Does he realise that there is a risk that, if UN troops are put back under the same, failed mandate, the position would be insecure for our troops if they were sent back to pick up the pieces?
Mr. Cook: It is certainly important that the UN force be as effective as possible. That has been our policy; it will continue to be the objective of the back-up we provide to the UN forces. I repeat that, if the hon. Gentleman studies the Security Council resolution that establishes UNAMSIL, he will find that it is very robust; it provides for lethal force to be used. It certainly mandated UNAMSIL to use lethal force in the circumstances in which the troops found themselves in the first week of May. The reason that it was not used had nothing to do with the failure of the mandate, but everything to do with the failure of effectiveness of the force. That is what should be tackled--not the mandate.
Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion): Has distribution of British arms to the Sierra Leonean army begun, and, if so, under what conditions? When the Foreign Secretary meets President Kabbah on Thursday, will he seek further assurances that those arms will be used neither by child soldiers nor by those aged under 18? What assurances and commitments will he seek from President Kabbah to ensure that those arms do not fall into the hands of any other militia groups--whether or not they are currently aligned with the Sierra Leonean army?
Mr. Cook: A quantity of rifles has been distributed to the army of Sierra Leone during the past few weeks. A similar quantity remains under our control in that country. It will be released only under the close supervision of our officers there and only on the clear and explicit understanding that the rifles will not be given to anyone aged under 18. Indeed, President Kabbah has given us an undertaking that he will not have under- 18-year-old children in the army. He has warned army officers that they will face disciplinary action if they recruit children under that age.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra (Ealing, Southall): What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take against companies based in London that deal in diamonds in order to promote conflict in the countries of Africa?
Mr. Cook: In the event that we secure our UN resolution, such activity would be illegal in relation to Sierra Leone. We shall certainly fully uphold the UN line.
Point of Order
4.14 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you back to Question 5 during Health questions? On three occasions, when questioned closely by the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State replied by questioning Opposition policies. That was flattering and interesting, but, under our rules of order, should not Ministers, when questioned about their Departments, reply by answering the question rather than simply by questioning the Opposition? Does not that turn Parliament on its head? What is the point of Question Time?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for comments made by Members--that includes Members on the Government Front Bench. However, to some extent, he is correct. In this House, it is not for Ministers to question the Opposition. The Executive are in charge; it is for the Opposition and for Government Back Benchers to scrutinise the Government, and for the Government to answer questions. No doubt, the time will come when we shall want to hear from the Opposition what their policies are--[Interruption.] Order. However, that is not for me to suggest; it is for the future. At present, it is for Ministers to answer on behalf of the Executive.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |