Sierra Leone

HC Deb 23 May 2000 vol 350 cc159-81WH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

10 am

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Minister gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and this morning, I tried to obtain an uncorrected transcript of his evidence. In so doing, I have spoken to and been helped by the Clerk of the Select Committee.

I understand that the contract that the House has with the organisation that transcribes the evidence prevents the House from having more than one expedited transcript of evidence in any one parliamentary Session. Therefore, the transcript is not available to the House today, even though a debate is taking place on the same subject and the transcript would have been a great help to hon. Members. Might I, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ask whether there is a possibility of having the contract changed so that hon. Members are not impeded in their deliberations on subjects as sensitive and important as those that we are to discuss with regard to Sierra Leone?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

As I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise, I cannot rule on the matter from the Chair although I have sympathy with the fact that the juxtaposition of the two events is such that it would have been helpful for the transcript to have been available. However, the control of such matters lies primarily with the Select Committee, which cannot be overruled unless new procedures are devised. Perhaps this is a matter for the Liaison Committee. I thank the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to respond and for putting the point on the record, but there is nothing that we can do to assist us during the debate.

10.2 am

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am pleased to have the opportunity of introducing this morning's debate because of a personal, long-term interest in west Africa. My interest has arisen from visits to Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana and Liberia, and because of the importance of the issue in terms of the future of the United Nations, which is surely of concern to us all.

The Government have been too diffident in justifying our role in Sierra Leone since the paratroopers landed there about a fortnight ago. We have constantly sought to say that our involvement is short term and will soon be over. Our involvement is just and necessary. We must be wary of over-involvement and devote a great deal of attention to achieving a greater contribution from others. However, we must not open ourselves to accusations of misleading the British public, as in some respects, a longer-term involvement is needed.

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the impertinence of intervening at the start of his speech. I endorse what he is saying with regard to this important subject. Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who are considering Sierra Leone, would normally wish to be here for the debate. However, this morning and this afternoon they are working on the final report of the Kosovo inquiry, which has been running for four or five months. I thought it right for this Chamber to know why the members of the Foreign Affairs Committee were not present.

Mr. Worthington

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's contribution. I am pleased that the Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into Sierra Leone. I hope that my speech today will be considered as my evidence to it.

Sir Peter Emery

Thank you very much.

Mr. Worthington

We need to consider the full dimensions of the Sierra Leone crisis. I am delighted that the days of Tory policies—or non-policies—on Africa are at an end. I draw attention to previous crises in Africa and to the way in which the House dealt with the issues involved. First, let us consider the previous Government's response to the Rwanda crisis. I remember the shame of Rwanda when this country and so many others turned their back on the most appalling genocide to have occurred since the second world war. We still do not know how many people were slaughtered during that crisis but the figure of 500,000 is often used. When the Security Council of the United Nations, with our support, pulled the United Nations out of Rwanda, the innocent were left to be slaughtered. The Government made no statement to the House about Rwanda and there was no parliamentary activity.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that as a result of the then Government's failure to act when genocide was occurring in Rwanda there is now the most appalling instability in the Great Lakes region, and it is threatening to spread across Africa?

Mr. Worthington

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that comment. Our past inactivity in that area is one reason for our present position. We made no political response to Rwanda; the British Government ignored it. However, we are not ignoring Sierra Leone, and that is an important step forward.

Secondly, let us consider Liberia, which is next door to Sierra Leone and contributes enormously to its problems. What did the United Nations do about Liberia? Nothing. After the American debacle in Somalia—an intervention that provided too little, too late and that was able to cope only with a war without casualties—the United Nations coined the idea of African solutions to African problems, which meant, in other words, "It's nothing to do with us, guv."

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the United Kingdom has the same national responsibility for Sierra Leone and Rwanda, or does he think that it has a different responsibility in the light of its interests in particular regions and because it has to act sometimes in the international community and sometimes on its own?

Mr. Worthington

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. In considering the way in which the Security Council operates, we must take into account where lead responsibilities lie. I do not have the slightest doubt that the lead responsibility in the case of Sierra Leone lies with us, although that is not the case in respect of Rwanda. Countries that have been most associated with African nations in the past have sometimes been the least appropriate to take a lead.

Mrs. Gillan

What was the policy of the Labour party on Rwanda? Did the then Opposition call for Government intervention and, more especially, military intervention? Did the hon. Gentleman expect our troops to be deployed in Rwanda?

Mr. Worthington

I am not proud of our role with regard to Rwanda. Nor am I proud that Rwanda was not debated in the House and there was no statement on it. Indeed, there was no parliamentary activity in respect of Rwanda, apart from two Adjournment debates that I initiated. That is to the shame of this country. I am glad that we have moved on to acknowledge Sierra Leone.

I was talking about Liberia and the idea of African solutions to African problems, which meant that we excused ourselves from any involvement. That led us to the absurdity of a pariah state—I am speaking of Nigeria, which was thrown out of the Commonwealth—ruled by corrupt military thugs, who robbed their own country, being encouraged to lead forces in Liberia and Sierra Leone on behalf of the world community to try to end the turmoil there. That approach had many problems, one of which was that the Nigerians did not pay their troops, who were forced to live off the country that they were protecting. I remember the exasperation of the non-governmental organisations in Liberia when they found their food warehouses empty having been guarded by the Nigerian army. Eventually, however, the Nigerians turned up trumps; they drove out the Revolutionary United Front from Freetown to an extent that made it possible to draw up a flawed peace deal.

My most recent experience of Sierra Leone was at the end of March when I went there on behalf of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I pay tribute to that organisation which was established by the previous Government with all-party support and has allowed many hon. Members to play a valuable role in supporting and establishing multiparty democracy throughout the world. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), asked the Westminster Foundation for Democracy what could be done to support the democratic process in Sierra Leone.

The Lomé peace deal includes plans to hold three elections and it is the job of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to provide help, training and support for the political parties so that those elections are free and fair. That is not an easy task. Parliamentarians have not been able to return to their rebel-held constituencies for a long time and all forms of communication in Sierra Leone, which has become the poorest country in the world, are appalling. I assume that the elections are on hold.

The press took it for granted that the UN peace effort was hopeless. That was unfair. The atmosphere in the country in March was one of optimism, although there was uncertainty about Foday Sankoh's intentions. Although disarmament was slow, it was estimated that about 15,000 of the combatants had disarmed. Progress was being made, but it depended on the integrity of Foday Sankoh, who had signed the Lomé agreement. The UN was asked to oversee a peace agreement and forces were being assembled for that purpose; it was not its intention to prosecute a war. Foday Sankoh changed all that. Despite having received an amnesty for his crimes, the rank of vice president and responsibility for the mines commission, he failed to honour his word.

The peacekeeping force—although of a varied quality—was being assembled. The camps for disarmament were being set up and a disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration programme was being introduced. The British effort was considerable. We were—and are—contributing enormously. However, the society was in total collapse. There was no army to speak of because it had rebelled against the Government and sections of it had formed militia groups. The police were in disarray. British aid did not concentrate simply on food and medicines—humanitarian aid—but on how Sierra Leone could be rebuilt from the bottom. It is relatively easy to construct buildings, rebuild roads, repair radio masts and reopen schools and health services; it is much harder to rebuild a society's social institutions and the rule of law, and to construct a shared understanding between opponents who have accepted that peace is better than war. That is painfully difficult work.

The conduct of the public debate on Sierra Leone has been seriously flawed. It has been wrong to concentrate on how quickly we can get out. I know that the debate has focused on frontline troops, but we must be honest and admit that it will take years rather than days or months to achieve a better future for Sierra Leone. A working democracy must be established. Earlier this year, we said that we were interested in reconstructing the Sierra Leonean army and the police force. In Freetown, I met the Ministry of Defence advisory team, which had decided to use our strategic defence review as a basis for a similar review of Sierra Leone. It was starting from scratch and had to consider the security risks and the country's defence needs. It started with the police, and is also concerned with political parties there. The country has been destroyed by nine years of war and many more years of corruption.

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the evidence of the post-second world war era is that whenever an international organisation such as the United Nations goes in and comes out quickly the long-term result is instability, but that when it goes in and stays in, there is at least a chance that stability, order and democracy can be restored—often at a lower price than a quick operation?

Mr. Worthington

I agree, but there has to be a quality input, which is what is happening in Sierra Leone.

There are positives in Sierra Leone. It has hung on to some of the traditions of the legal system established by the British. Until recently, it had a good university. Civil society has some strong elements; a non-governmental organisation called the Centre for Good Governance would rank with many of the best NGOs. It is a small country with between 4 million and 5 million people. It has no huge regional, ethnic or religious tensions such as one finds in Nigeria or Sudan and there is a huge lust for peace.

If the United Nations cannot cope with Sierra Leone, it cannot cope with anything. It is important that it does cope, because many other tasks await it—for instance, next door in the Congo. We must make Sierra Leone succeed; if we cannot, the consequences for the world will be appalling. The message will be that the Foday Sankoh style of thug can run riot, and the UN will have to shut up shop as a peacemaker—and as an enforcer of peace.

The United Nations includes us, but that does not mean that we should always take the lead. However, UN forces should not include the appallingly trained and ill-equipped forces of parts of the developing world. There must be some first-world involvement because of our logistics and strategy.

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

My hon. Friend, who knows about such matters, will recall that "An Agenda for Peace", the report produced in 1992 by Boutros Boutros-Ghali, set out exactly what the United Nations needed to do to build up its ability to deal with regional conflicts and the subsequent peace-building process. Regrettably, the implementation of that report has been sabotaged, particularly by the United States. Does my hon. Friend agree that that report suggests some of the solutions that the UN needs today?

Mr. Worthington

We have to revisit those issues. The United Kingdom is a member of the Security Council. If we are to respond appropriately to such crises, we must learn the lessons of the past; we must then move forward. It is obvious that we are leading in Sierra Leone; the shortest of visits confirms Britain's pre-eminence there. However, in response to the point raised by my hon. Friend, our actions are a role model for other Security Council member states.

I welcome the fact that our response was so thorough and committed. However, it is unsatisfactory in the long term that the UN force and our forces should act separately and distinctively, as they are doing in Sierra Leone. A job needs to be done there, and I am confident that the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office realise that and are looking for a solution.

The Government's policy is to end world poverty, but there is not the slightest chance of doing that unless we face up to the conflict. The vast majority of the poorest countries in the world are in conflict or emerging from it. To end their poverty, those countries must rebuild their social infrastructure, which has been destroyed because most of those wars were the result of internal conflict—although, as in the case of Sierra Leone, some of them were stimulated from abroad. In facing that task, we must consider how the international community should respond. We must consider the co-ordination of actions and the funding of peace efforts.

It is crucial that the UN's response should be quick and appropriate. The forces of the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone built up painfully slowly, which resulted in limbo after the peace deal. NATO, the world's pre-eminent military alliance, was unable to respond timeously, whether with relief and helicopters for Mozambique or the transport of soldiers to Sierra Leone. The Canadians have recently transported other nations' peacekeepers, but why is every peacekeeping initiative involving third-world forces bedevilled by the inadequacy of the means of getting them to the site, when NATO could do that?

Communications is another issue that needs to be examined. The country virtually no longer has a telephone system outside Freetown. Therefore, it needs first-world communications systems to be brought in. The absence of radio transmission for the whole country makes it fertile territory for the rebels. We can tackle that. However, we cannot go back to the Tory days of blaming the United Nations for failure when the main reason for that was our failure to provide the necessary support and team work.

Dr. Tonge

The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous over interventions. Does he think that not seeking control of the diamond mines in Sierra Leone was one of the fatal mistakes? They were allowed to remain in the control of Sankoh and continue to fuel the war.

Mr. Worthington

I am coming to the diamonds, which are a crucial issue.

We have done very well with respect to our present commitment. We recognised, first, through the scale of our commitment, that humanitarian aid was not enough—the high commission, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development have responded well—and, secondly, by the quality of our military response, that we were right to do as we have done. It is foolish of the Opposition to demand withdrawal dates or published limitations of action. Have they not learned from Kosovo that when we state that we shall not take certain military action, only the enemy benefits?

Mrs. Gillan

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Worthington

I would rather not, because I am conscious that other hon. Members are waiting to speak, and I have been generous in giving way.

We must give quality support and work with countries such as the newly democratic Nigeria, to ensure that the UN peacekeepers do their job effectively, but we must be deeply sceptical about other countries such as Liberia, which has been involved in stimulating trouble in Sierra Leone and which has a considerable diamond trade, although few diamonds. The killing of a high-ranking Liberian officer alongside rebel forces in Sierra Leone suggests that President Taylor may well be up to his old tricks. The capture of Foday Sankoh is tremendous news but there will be difficult days ahead in trying to ensure the safety of the hostages and we must be careful what we say in those circumstances. However, I am confident that with skilled management at the heart of the UN response the rebels can be driven back.

Enormous skill will be needed to tackle a central problem of Sierra Leone—control of the diamond industry, which remains in rebel hands. For a long time, politics in Sierra Leone has been corrupted by diamonds. Sierra Leone cannot become healthy until that wealth is honestly administered. In the words used by Graham Greene for the title of his novel, they are the heart of the matter. A report on the diamond industry, also called "The Heart of the Matter", by Smillie, Gberie and Hazleton, states that until the 1980s the legendary, mystical firm of De Beers, with its virtual monopoly of diamond marketing, had an office in Freetown. Now it maintains a diamond trading company in Liberia and a buying office in Guinea, but nothing in Sierra Leone. It is difficult to believe anything other than that many of the Liberian diamonds are of Sierra Leonean origin.

It is estimated that the annual Liberian production of diamonds is between 100,000 and 150,000 carats. However, Belgium imported more than 6 million carats from Liberia, although De Beers claims not to purchase Sierra Leone diamonds. There will not be peace until the diamond trade is controlled and that cannot be done by Sierra Leone alone. The same also applies in Angola and the Congo. The control of diamonds will have to be achieved through the setting up of control mechanisms by the developed world; otherwise, mayhem and thuggery will continue in Sierra Leone with assistance from outside the country.

The refugee and internal displacement problems are further reasons why a quick fix is not possible in Sierra Leone. About 500,000 people are refugees—10 per cent. of the population live outside the country—and about half the population has been internally displaced by the conflict. Mayhem has been rife in large parts of the country. That is graphically demonstrated by the amputations, the torture, the child soldiers and the total collapse of any ordered society in the regions, where the rebels have ruled by terror. Sierra Leone has become the poorest country in the world, a large proportion of the population being illiterate because a generation has missed out on schooling. A quick fix and rapid departure is not possible. An ordered response is required from the donor countries of the world, which must include help to build up Sierra Leone's civil society. Support must be given to local democrats, non-governmental organisations, lawyers and academics, who have kept the faith throughout these years and who need liberating from the thugs and the terror. The United Kingdom's role is crucial.

10.26 am

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for introducing the debate. The hon. Gentleman has an honourable record of raising important African issues. It is a disgrace that it fell to him to raise the issue in this Chamber; there should have been a debate on the Floor of the House on the commitment of British servicemen overseas. Two Government statements are not sufficient, particularly on a complicated issue such as Sierra Leone, which has so many facets. A single question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or the Secretary of State for Defence following their statements does not allow hon. Members enough time to make their views known. Both Ministers were disingenuous in their statements. They sought to obfuscate the true nature of the mission—if it had any when they began the military commitment.

I intervened on the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie about the United Kingdom's responsibility for Sierra Leone compared with our position on Rwanda. The hon. Gentleman was unnecessarily harsh on the previous Government's policy on Rwanda, which, from my recollection, was supported by the then Labour Opposition. The United Kingdom does not have a particular responsibility for Rwanda and the previous Government's policy was in line with that of the rest of the international community. With hindsight, the international community should have acted differently, but we do not have the benefit of hindsight when we make such decisions. When the international community decided to send a UN mission to Rwanda, the United Kingdom committed troops to the operation.

Dr. Tonge

The issue is not whose responsibility it is to intervene in any particular country. Those countries do not stand alone. The problem in Rwanda arose from the mutual antipathy of the Hutu and Tutsi people. They are spread throughout the Great Lakes region of Africa and any conflict between them was bound to intensify. Intervention in a particular country is not the responsibility of solely one country, but of the world.

Mr. Blunt

The hon. Lady has identified one of the complications in the Great Lakes region. The fact that the two ethnic groups have a long history of hostility makes military intervention on one side or the other and trying to establish peace difficult. That is not the situation in Sierra Leone with the RUF. Sierra Leone is different because ethnic conflict is not present as it is in the Great Lakes region. We should not be distracted by the question of international intervention in the Great Lakes region.

Dr. Tonge

The Great Lakes region illustrates how a problem in one country can affect the entire region. We have been discussing the diamond trade. Wars may be triggered by ethnic conflict and fuelled by the diamond, oil or gold industry. They affect the whole region and Sierra Leone is another example of that.

Mr. Blunt

Certainly, the gold and diamond industries were not issues in the Great Lakes region.

Speaking of west Africa as a whole, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie drew attention to the very uncomfortable choice that faced the international community in respect of Nigeria leading regional intervention into Liberia. He drew attention to the nature of the Nigerian regime at the time. Nigeria was subject to sanctions from the Commonwealth and elsewhere for the execution of Ken Sarawiwa and the oppression of the Ogone people. However, the international community welcomed the Nigerian leadership of the intervention in Liberia. Foreign ministries throughout the world, and not least the members of the Security Council, have to make uncomfortable choices.

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the Lomé agreement, which he endorsed. Making Corporal Sankoh Vice-President of Sierra Leone and Minister for Natural Resources turned out to be a disaster, which should have been predicted. It is the latest stage of British responsibility for what has happened in Sierra Leone, which is why we have a special responsibility now to take the lead in trying to reestablish a decent civil society there.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain)

Is the hon. Gentleman implying that the Lomé agreement was a British-negotiated agreement? If so, he is wrong and other Conservative Back Benchers are similarly mistaken. It was an African-brokered agreement by ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, backed by the Commonwealth and the United Nations with Britain and the United States as observers. However imperfect it was, it must be remembered that there was no Sierra Leonean army, the RUF had thousands of troops and President Kabbah believed that he should obtain the best possible negotiated deal, however imperfect.

Mr. Blunt

The unfortunate truth is that President Kabbah believed that he had to agree to that deal because his only source of income was aid from the first world. He did not have control of the diamond fields or receive royalties from diamond production. It was made clear to him that if he did not sign the Lomé agreement, he would not receive further development assistance.

Mr. Gapes

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that President Kabbah should have said, "OK, I don't want a deal. I'll let Mr. Sankoh take over Freetown and massacre intellectuals, lawyers and everyone else"?

Mr. Blunt

Corporal Sankoh would have had difficulty doing that because he was under sentence of death in a Nigerian jail. He was released to conduct the negotiations leading to the Lomé agreement. It was clear from the specialist African press and the personalities involved that the agreement was forced on the Nigerians and President Kabbah against their better judgment. As the hon. Gentleman said, the production figures show that 90 per cent. of the diamonds sold through Liberia come from Sierra Leone and RUF areas. The RUF is a bunch of terrorist gangsters, so it is hardly surprising that, given its relationship with Liberia and having been left in control of the diamond-producing areas, it would not easily give up its source of wealth. That is precisely how it turned out.

If the United Nations force that was sent to implement the Lomé agreement had been robust and led by a first-world power with a strong mandate, it might have been possible by force of arms to have persuaded the RUF to surrender and to have forced the current confrontation with the RUF. The United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, UNAMSIL, was made up of nations that are militarily reasonable, such as the Indians and Jordanians, and of those that have proven in the field to be, absolutely lamentable, such as the Zambian contingent, which got into frightful trouble in Sierra Leone during the past six months and acted as a trigger—many Zambians were taken hostage. The next phase of operations with the RUF began to move away from the agreement, and the RUF thought that it might have a chance to turn over the operations of the United Nations and of the Sierra Leonean Government.

Our responsibility in the Sierra Leonean saga goes back to the arms to Africa affair. The Government display what appears to be an ethical reluctance to have anything to do with companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes, which worked for the Sierra Leonean Government and the diamond producers. The Government's reactions in public and private make a rather interesting contrast. In public, they display enormous concern about appearances and presentation. That is why they were so anxious to secure an agreement at Lomé. The Sierra Leonean Government and the Nigerians—the other major power that was involved—were, in effect, forced to come to an agreement, although their instinct was to crush and eliminate the RUF, which they would have done if they had had the appropriate support and opportunities. That could have been achieved if President Kabbah had been given realistic support in the first place from companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes.

The Government have made clear their great distaste for private-sector military companies, but if such companies had been used in Sierra Leone, they would have realised the objective, which we share, of ensuring victory for the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone and they would have secured the country's wealth-creation area—the diamond mines—which could have been handed over to a major mining corporation. That company could have helped to secure the area in exactly the same way that that has been done in other difficult parts of the world, such as Colombia. Royalties would have flowed to the Sierra Leonean Government—they would have had a source of income that would have enabled them to rebuild civil society in that country.

Dr. Tonge

The hon. Gentleman's comments make a good advertisement for arms brokers and for illegal arms sales. Does he agree that arms brokers should be registered and that their exports should be licensed on an organised basis?

Mr. Blunt

I agree with that absolutely. Transparency in this difficult area is extremely important. However, when one is trying to secure effective military intervention but, for understandable reasons, one does not want one's armed forces to be sucked into someone else's war, a strong case can be made for paying companies to take the necessary action. If one says that the public image of private arms companies is so unattractive that one wants to have absolutely nothing to do with them, one ties one's hands and takes away a tool that can be used to achieve one's foreign policy goals.

Mr. Keetch

I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He knows, for various reasons, that there are many security companies in my constituency. Would he have preferred it if British mercenaries rather than a United Nations, or a British, force had gone into Sierra Leone?

Mr. Blunt

Each situation is unique, but it would have been better if the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone had sorted out their own internal problem in the first place, with the assistance of companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes and on the promise of future revenue from royalties from the diamond mines, than if, after two or three years of butchery by Corporal Sankoh's forces and the RUF, the whole international community had been drawn in.

Given the United Kingdom's responsibility for Sierra Leone, the Government should see the action through to its proper conclusion. They were faced with a choice when they decided to deploy military forces. At first, the operation was intended simply to evacuate British nationals. Then another aim was added—to secure Lungi airport to get a United Nations force into the country. The main objective should be to return Sierra Leone to the control of its democratically elected president and restore civil society and security for its people.

The RUF is a bunch of terrorist gangsters, which supports itself in power through the supply of money that it gets from Sierra Leone's diamond mines and its relationship with Liberia, where the diamonds are marketed. The key military objective is to destroy the RUF by taking control of the ground that is vital to it—that is, the diamond-producing area. I believe that that is achievable, given that the RUF has no cultural basis of support and commands no tribal loyalty. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. The operation should be properly followed up with the kinds of commitment that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie described—retraining the Sierra Leone army, training the police force and the civil service and putting in place civil institutions.

Following the achievement of that military objective, the mining areas could be held by UN forces, and, in due course, handed over to a civil mining company that would look after their security. Meanwhile, the local police force and army could be built up with the help of companies such as Executive Outcomes and Sandline International, which provide such services in similar difficult circumstances.

Dr. Tonge

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunt

I have taken too long already, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.

The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie drew attention to the relative levels of involvement of UN and British forces. I agree with him that it would be infinitely better if it were a UN operation, under one flag, with a clear mandate to destroy the RUF through military action.

That raises the problem of who is to command and organise the UN operation. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that first-world forces would have to be involved. Britain is the only first-world country on the ground, so the Minister would have the difficult task of achieving British leadership and control of the operation so as to ensure its success. Given their previous leadership role, the Nigerians may resent the United Kingdom entering an area in which they are the main regional power. Another important factor may be the position of the current Indian commander of the UN force.

While difficult sensitivities will have to be addressed, the military objectives can be achieved with the forces that are on the ground in Sierra Leone. Given our country's responsibility for the situation, that is the course of action that we should pursue. It would be a crying shame if Government reluctance to establish control over the key wealth-producing area of the diamond mines—which is central to the restoration of civil society in Sierra Leone—led to a softly, softly approach based on the hope that the RUF would crumble in the face of a static British presence in Lungi and Freetown, and that the UN forces would gradually be beefed up to carry out that operation. The RUF might well collapse and victory might fall into our lap. However, we should not take the risk.

We have the opportunity to take firm action to restore a level of stability to Sierra Leone that it has not experienced for far too long. I hope that the Government will grasp that nettle. My hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have made it clear that that is also their view. I hope that the Government will discharge their responsibilities to Sierra Leone in a way that can be admired and held up as an example of resolute action being used to achieve the proper outcome in that unhappy part of the world.

10.45 am

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford)

I am here not to make my own speech but to represent my constituents. I am no expert in foreign affairs, and rarely engage in debates on the subject, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for raising the matter.

A third of my constituents is of ethnic minority origin, and among that group is a significant number from west Africa. I have received representations from three organisations. First, the National League for Human Rights and Democracy is a non-profit international human rights organisation that is a recognised nongovernmental organisation within the UN. It monitors and promotes issues of human rights and democratic values in west Africa. It is working on long-term solutions to the problems in Sierra Leone and examining models that have been adopted in Northern Ireland, for example. I hope to encourage it to make submissions to the Select Committee during its inquiry.

Secondly, I have received representations from the Lewisham Racial Equality Council, which feels that the status and concerns of people here need to be connected to their concerns about the countries from which they came. Finally, I have received representations from the South London African Organisation and I want to read its submissions into the record today. It believes that the present chaos in the west African sub-region is a consequence of the premature exit of the Nigerian-led west African peacekeeping force and the deployment of what it regards as an ill-equipped, under-resourced and badly trained UN peacekeeping force.

According to the organisation, most Sierra Leoneans argue that a weakness undermining the UN force is its rules of engagement, and that proactive engagement is the only suitable remedy for the complexity and severity of the conflict there. As one would expect, it condemns unequivocally the disruption of the UN forces and the peacekeeping mission. It appreciates the efforts of western Governments and the international community to secure peace and political stability, but it argues, as others have done this morning, for a much more proactive approach.

Prompted by recent developments, concerned Sierra Leoneans and other African nationals met on 8 and 9 May under the auspices of the South London African Organisation to put forward a number of proposals, which have been sent to me to convey to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). The organisation categorically condemns the killings and abduction of the UN peacekeeping troops by Foday Sankoh's Revolutionary United Front rebels. It asks western Governments—especially Britain and the United States—and the international community to support the Government and the people of Sierra Leone to secure sustainable peace and political stability by contributing rapid reaction troops. The organisation urges that this be treated as a matter of urgency.

The Nigerian-led west African peacekeeping force should, the organisation believes, be redeployed in Sierra Leone, as part of a well resourced, well trained and well equipped peacekeeping contingent. It believes that the current Lomé peace deal should be reviewed urgently, and that investigations into the shooting of peaceful protestors by RUF rebels at the residence of their leader, Foday Sankoh, in the capital, Freetown, should be part of such a wider review. The Sierra Leonean army and civil defence force should be strengthened, and the hitherto disputed status of the former resolved urgently.

The group does not want to engage in polemics about the rationale for a western contribution to a rapid reaction force, but it believes that the trustees of the Lomé peace accord—Britain, the United States and the international community—share an obligation to bring peace and political stability to war-torn Sierra Leone. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has clarified the position regarding the United Kingdom's role, but this organisation believes that the United Nations, including Britain and the United States, induced the Government and people of Sierra Leone to sign the Lomé peace deal with the RUF and its allies.

It is important that the Minister clarifies the position—he has done so today, and I shall make that point to the group. According to the group, there was a guarantee that the trustees would secure a sustainable peace through all humanly possible means. The group makes a contrast between the position of their country vis-à-vis the international community and that of Kosovo, where there are tens of thousands of NATO troops, including United States troops. Members of the group feel that there should be more international support, particularly from the United States, which recently agreed to extend operations by its troops in Kosovo, but still rules out sending a rapid reaction force to Sierra Leone. They say that the west and the international community should have learned by now that simple logistical support will not be a long-term solution to the problems faced by Sierra Leone.

Finally, on behalf of the Sierra Leoneans and under the umbrella of the South London African Organisation, I have been asked to appeal to the Government to react positively to the situation in Sierra Leone. The group appreciates what has been done, but feels strongly—the letter is signed by 71 constituents—that more must be done and that there must be longer-term, sustained support to find a peaceful solution and allow a return to full democracy.

10.53 am

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)

I want to make three points, but I shall be brief.

First, I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said. A number of my constituents are refugees or have come from west Africa to study in this country. Two years ago, I made representations to the Government about why it was taking them so long to resolve the status of the Sierra Leoneans in my constituency. One of the leading lawyers involved in the prosecution of the people who carried out the previous coup had had to flee to this country. Her children were in Guinea, but she did not know where they were and was desperately worried. In the end, she went to Guinea to find her children, before her status in this country had been resolved. That was regrettable, and we should look at such matters, because they affect many people who flee to this country. Perhaps the Daily Mail and The Sun could carry stories about the way in which people have fled Sierra Leone and elsewhere to come to this country.

I want to comment on what the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said. He talked about national interest, which is a difficult question. Obviously, it is not possible for this country, despite being a permanent member of the Security Council, to be involved in all attempts to resolve conflicts throughout the world. However, it would be regrettable if politicians in this country gave the impression—as some Opposition Mems have—that we are interested in saving the lives of white Europeans only, and could not care less about black Africans. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate, who said that we should see the job through and continue to offer support. Given our involvement in the Lomé process, the diamond trade and other activities, and given our colonial history, we have a responsibility to the region.

What will happen in the long term if we succeed in liberating diamond production areas through the international community? Financially, personally and in terms of his surrogate army, the RUF, it is clear that President Charles Taylor of Liberia has a significant interest in the region. We must demonstrate foresight in respect of events in Liberia. Will it host continuing RUF incursions? Will there be guerrilla warfare? How secure will the region ultimately prove? That raises the wider question of stability and democracy not just in Sierra Leone, but in neighbouring countries.

I mentioned the UN report "An Agenda for Peace", which was produced by former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. We must reconsider that report, as well as how to establish effective regional security organisations. As a north Atlantic, European security organisation, NATO should not be the world's policeman. That would give rise to political problems, and it is difficult to see how it could work in strategic and logistical terms. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, NATO is the only regional security organisation that can begin to offer assistance, given the absence of effective organisations elsewhere.

The UN should consider the matter further. We have a role to play in building such structures because of the respect in which British military personnel are held throughout the world.

Mr. Blunt

The hon. Gentleman's last comment implied that he believes that NATO has a role to play south of the Tropic of Cancer and I am sure that he will not want to leave that impression. Given his experience of defence, he will want to make it clear that it would be wholly improper for NATO to play such a role outside Europe. Moreover, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has misunderstood the nature of NATO. His comments were naive—NATO members may have a responsibility in the region, but the institution does not.

Mr. Gapes

I agree. I know what is stated in article 6 of the North Atlantic treaty, but we shall not go into that now. NATO member states—particularly the United States, but also the United Kingdom and France—have military assets and capabilities that can be deployed globally. Such assets would have to be deployed in certain contexts, but to do so would raise the question whether the prime function—maintaining security in the north Atlantic—was being fulfilled. I have reservations about that approach, because there are implications that must be considered by NATO, the NATO alliance and our partners. Ultimately, we need regional security organisations, so we should do our best to support them.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Nigerians and the work that they have done in this region. I understand that 1,000 Nigerians have been killed in the Sierra Leone conflict. Such a loss would be an enormous burden for any society, and it is not surprising that the democratic candidate in the presidential election gave a commitment to get out of the situation because of it. The President's decision to re-enter the conflict required political courage and must be supported by other countries. We should be working closely with democratic Nigeria to do whatever we can, collectively and with others, to find a solution and to restore to the Sierra Leone Government control of their whole territory.

11 am

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this timely debate. He is right to have brought the matter to this Chamber. I congratulate also the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on their important speeches.

I shall keep my remarks short, as I want to give the Minister time to answer the questions that have been asked. First, I should ask him whether there is any further information on the bodies bearing United Nations uniforms that were found yesterday and on whether they are those of UN personnel. We would be grateful for any information.

I offer my support and that of the Liberal Democrats to the British mission in Sierra Leone. The arrival of British troops could not have been timelier, and it provided an immediate and much-needed boost to the morale of the UN forces. It is increasingly clear that the presence of British troops is now essential to the success of the UN mission. Since British troops have been present, the UN force has been able to move deeper into the country, secure in the knowledge that its lines of supply, reinforcement and communication are covered. It is right that we should pay tribute not only to the Army presence—in the form of the Parachute Regiment and the Gurkhas—but to the support of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopter personnel who are flying from HMS Illustrious. The operation is an example of the deployment that the Government rightly identified three years ago in their strategic defence review.

In the past few days, pro-Government soldiers have been able to make significant headway in digging deep into Sierra Leone, assisted by British forces. With the arrest of the rebel leader, Foday Sankoh, and the news that more UN peacekeepers have been freed, the military signs are encouraging. However, the humanitarian implications are still not so. The new refugee crisis to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred is a strong possibility. We should remember what happened in Kosovo. Of course, the rains are coming, and the whole environment will change much in the next few weeks.

It has become clear that a week is a long time in Sierra Leone. The original mission of British troops was to evacuate British, Commonwealth and European nationals, but that has now advanced to another stage: Royal Navy and Royal Air Force Harriers have been undertaking reconnaissance missions, heavy artillery is being taken off HMS Ocean and deployed ashore to protect our troops at Lungi and Special Air Services and Pathfinder patrols are operating in the front line and exchanging fire with rebel forces. That shift in emphasis has allowed the UN to buy time for additional reinforcements to arrive. What is the Minister's impression of the new UN forces?

We urge the Government to accept that British forces are now central to the UN mission in Sierra Leone and that the premature withdrawal of our troops would have a devastating effect on that mission and on the UN's credibility in peacekeeping missions in general. We must keep some of our forces in Sierra Leone until UN troops have established their authority throughout the country. The hon. Member for Reigate called for one flag, one control and one force. There are good reasons why that should happen. Should not Britain continue to contribute to the reinforcement of the UN force and not merely enable that reinforcement to occur?

The UN cannot be expected to keep a peace that is not there in the first place. There is a stark difference between the mandates of peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Fundamentally, the UN needs a new and robust mandate that the troops can enforce. We must not forget that the UN constitutes nothing more than the will of its individual members. There has been much talk about the lack of suitable training, the ability to cope and the poor equipment of some UN units. However, if nations that have the capacity to support UN peacekeepers, whether financially, logistically or by providing high-quality equipment, choose to turn our backs, a UN failure will be our failure. It will not be the failure of nations of lesser economic or military capability, which none the less dedicate men where others fear to tread.

Some have argued that African nations should find an African solution to the problem. However, we have a moral responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council, as the former colonial power and as the leader of the Commonwealth to provide a solution when others cannot. The Government are floating plans to train and arm the Sierra Leonean army and to ensure that 6,000 UN troops are available to secure SLA advances. We also welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Defence that military help to UN peacekeepers would continue even after the Parachute Regiment had been withdrawn. That support must be conditional—it must go to the right forces. There are now six separate armed command structures in a country of between 4 million and 5 million people, plus the RUF. We must ensure that British military assistance in terms of weapons or training is directed at the right location.

I pay tribute to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on the diamond trade, which is central to the problem. I welcome the reply that the Minister gave my hon. Friend on 18 May, when he said that he had had discussions with the G8, with Belgium and with De Beers. That was helpful and we will support Government moves to ensure that diamonds are part of the answer.

It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the United Kingdom does not carry the can for the west's unwillingness to connect in Africa. To withdraw prematurely would mean that our intervention had been in vain. By sending our troops to Sierra Leone and by assisting the UN peacekeepers, we have created a responsibility to the United Nations. We must ensure that we live up to that responsibility in the times ahead.

11.6 am

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham)

I welcome you, Mr. Gale, to the Chair for the first time in this Chamber. I am delighted to see you presiding over our deliberations. I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on initiating the debate and I echo the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that it is taking place in this Chamber and not on the Floor of the House, where more hon. Members could participate.

I would like to add the Opposition's tribute to those already paid to our troops deployed in a hostile environment in Sierra Leone and also to their families back in this country, many of whom will be concerned until the troops return home safely. I am sure that our troops there will rise to the challenge of active service, not least because they are some of our finest service personnel. We all know that they will do a first-class job no matter what is required of them. I would like to express our concerns for the hostages being held by the RUF and for the aid workers still missing. We all hope for their safe return. We heard this morning of the RUF's demands for Foday Sankoh's release in return for the hostages. While appreciating the restrictions under which the Minister operates, we hope that in his reply to the debate he will reassure us about the Government's reaction to those demands.

We have a long historic connection with Sierra Leone, which has been maintained through the Commonwealth and our old colonial responsibilities. Freetown began as a destination for slaves freed by the Royal Navy. Believe it or not, at the end of the 19th century the level of education in Sierra Leone was higher than in this country. Today, however, it is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a derisory gross domestic product per head and a male life expectancy of a mere 37 years of age. However, that disguises the fact that its diamond mines are a major source of wealth. They are at the heart of the current round of killing and fighting, I am afraid. With great sadness we are again discussing Sierra Leone and the parlous state of affairs there.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)

I apologise for not having been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but I have been in a Standing Committee. That is a problem for hon. Members serving on Committees who wish to attend debates in this Chamber.

Do hon. Members agree that De Beers has a responsibility? As was said earlier in the debate, diamonds are coming out of Sierra Leone through Liberia and De Beers should close its purchasing offices there. Diamonds appear to be fuelling the conflict. Will Opposition Members add to what has been said about that?

Mrs. Gillan

I thank my hon. Friend, who saves me from having to cover the point later in my speech. Yesterday, the Minister gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee saying that he was taking action over diamond sales and blood diamonds and the Opposition will of course support him.

Mr. Blunt

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Gillan

I am very short of time and hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.

I want to discuss some of the issues that were raised in the Select Committee because the Minister's evidence caused more confusion, with serious implications. I should like the Minister to clarify his evidence about requests from President Kabbah for Brigadier Richards to stay on in Sierra Leone, for an officer to train the Sierra Leonean army and for an official to be transferred into the office of the chief of defence staff. It was revealed that the decisions were taken by officials without reference to the Minister. Does he think, with hindsight, that that was wise? Can he confirm the date of President Kabbah's request, the date of the refusal and the date on which the Minister or his predecessor was informed that the requests—apart from the one for an official to be transferred to the office of the chief of defence staff—had been denied? Does the Minister consider that he has proper control of officials in his Department—particularly if they think that such decisions should be taken without bothering Ministers?

Surely there can be no doubt, after the Foreign Affairs Committee's previous investigation on Sierra Leone, when it adjudged what had gone on to be disastrous, that Ministers should be involved. Yesterday the Minister intimated that the issue was covered in Peter Penfold's briefings, particularly the final telegram, which the Minister said he would reveal in confidence to the Committee. If everything were in order, would the Minister place all the telegrams from Mr. Penfold in the Library of the House, including the valedictory dispatch? Anything less would lead us to believe the worst. He seemed very willing to provide them to the Select Committee yesterday, so I see no reason why they should be denied to other hon. Members.

Mr. Keetch

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan

No. There is not enough time and there is a lot of ground to cover.

I hope that the Minister will provide explanations of the involvement of Air Foyle, following his replies to the Select Committee yesterday. I understand from reports that Air Foyle flew surface-to-air missiles, Kalashnikovs and rocket-propelled grenade launchers from the Ukraine to Burkina Faso last year. The Select Committee has asked the Minister to provide the dates on which officials and Ministers were informed about the flights and the date when the MOD contracts were awarded to Air Foyle. I hope that the Minister has those dates to hand.

The Lomé peace accord has been mentioned by other hon. Members this morning. Will the Minister expand on his evidence yesterday and confirm his and the Government's role? For example, how often did he meet Foday Sankoh? Obviously he spent a great deal of time with him, because he told the Committee yesterday that he repeatedly told him, "You have signed this agreement and you are going to stick to it." Did the Minister have any discussions with Mr. Sankoh about controlling the diamond-producing area of Sierra Leone and what was said on both sides? Can the Minister say categorically that no British official or Minister, or any other agent from the United Kingdom, brought any pressure to bear on President Kabbah to give Mr. Sankoh control of the lucrative diamond area? That matter was raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). There is some concern that inducements were given. During the Lomé negotiations did any party raise the subject of British aid and were any conditions attached to the aid? Were aid payments linked to the outcome of the Lomé agreement, and if so, how?

Why did the Minister acquiesce to the appointment to high office, and to the control of the country's finances, of a man who has raped, pillaged, maimed, tortured and cannibalised his people and murdered his family? Is the Minister happy to have done business with him on behalf of the United Kingdom?

Finally, I raise the military issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate. Two weeks ago, we were told that our troops had a clear mandate to organise the evacuation of British citizens and ensure their safety. It is clear that that was not the whole truth; following the Minister's frankness in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, we are now closer to the truth. The Minister told us that the troops' mandate was to evacuate British citizens, to secure Lungi airport, to facilitate the entry of UN peacekeepers via that secure airport, to provide logistical support to the UN force, to carry out searches for the hostages and to assist in any way that is considered desirable. That sounds like a mission brief. I believe that the Minister said yesterday—I could have checked his words had the transcript been available—that nothing is outside its mandate. If that is so, he should clear up the uncertainty and confusion about the deployment of forces. The remarks of a British officer with detailed knowledge of the operation demonstrate that confusion. He said that one of the problems in putting the mission together was that the Government blows hot and cold on this issue, especially Robin Cook. British forces continue to receive our support in whatever they are called on to do. However, the nature of our commitment is changing and Ministers have still not provided enough clarity. We read reports about the possibility that the United Kingdom might supply arms. The subject is being considered at a meeting today. The mission now appears to be an open-ended commitment, with the Minister giving the impression that our troops could be tied up in Sierra Leone for months. Despite the Foreign Secretary's assurances at the beginning of the month that British troops would not be committed as a combat force, they are taking on a combat role. The longer the mission lasts, the more likelihood there is of troops being drawn deeper into the conflict.

The Government's record on Sierra Leone has not been a happy one. British marines and paratroopers are doing a great job there. They will have the support of the Opposition in whatever they are asked to do. However, the Government's activities—and, in some cases, the inactivity of Ministers—will continue to be the subject of close scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will have enough time to answer the many questions that are being repeatedly raised about the Government's involvement in Sierra Leone.

11.18 am

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain)

Frankly, I doubt that I shall have time to do so.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this important debate at such a critical time. I pay tribute to his long commitment to foreign policy, especially in Africa. His remarks were thoughtful and well informed, which contrasted favourably with many of the debates on the issue in recent weeks. I agree with him that the debate has been flawed—the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made a similar point—in that it has focused on how fast we can depart rather than on what we are seeking to achieve.

Mrs. Gillan

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hain

No, I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Mrs. Gillan

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair)

Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Hain

The remarks of other hon. Members were equally important, especially those by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that control of the diamond trade is crucial. That is true for Angola, the Congo and especially Sierra Leone. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) made the same point. He and other h Ms raised important issues concerning diamonds and the role of Liberia. Although De Beers has pulled out of Sierra Leone, it retains an office in Liberia. As all Sierra Leone's diamonds go across the Liberian border, De Beers should give the matter some attention. However, I must acknowledge that De Beers has co-operated with us in developing pioneering work to regulate the international diamond trade.

As the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) described his plans for the use of private armies to solve every conflict in the world, I had an image of Commander Blunt, the hero of "Wild Geese", the sequel, intervening in conflicts.

Mr. Blunt

Will the Minister give way? He has misrepresented me.

Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that he cannot accuse a Minister of misrepresenting facts in this Chamber.

Mr. Hain

The hon. Gentleman made one good point about how important it is to get control of diamond areas, but we must bear in mind that the diamonds are alluvial diamonds. They come from a vast area of bandit country and the terrain is difficult. The logistics must be considered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made many well-argued points on behalf of her constituents. I hope that they will be reassured. I understand the African anger about the apparent readiness of the west to intervene in Kosovo but not in Africa. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South said in his well-informed speech, Africa needs regional security and peacekeeping. It needs to use the Southern African Development Community, ECOWAS in west Africa and the EAC—the East African Community—in east Africa to develop its own peacekeeping conflict-prevention capacity to provide the sockets into which a UN and western plug could fit. The absence of such a socket has been a problem in Africa for many years. I agree that NATO cannot do everything.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the big fuss that was made yesterday and what the high commissioner did or did not say. On 11 April, President Kabbah called the high commissioner, Peter Penfold, to say that he had decided to appoint a temporary Sierra Leonean chief of defence staff to replace the seriously ill Nigerian, General Khobe. He was concerned that General Khobe's departure would lead to a collapse of morale and would boost the RUF rebels. He asked us to move one of the British advisers who was working on the reform of the Sierra Leonean army into the defence headquarters with the new chief of defence staff. We did that, as the hon. Lady acknowledged. The president also asked us to advance the arrival of the new British commander of the military assistance and training team, which we agreed to do.

His third request, however, was to delay the departure of Brigadier Richards, who had been on a tour of duty, so that he could take over as the Sierra Leonean chief of defence staff. However, as there is no Sierra Leonean army to speak of, how could a senior British soldier—I hope that the hon. Lady is not advocating this—be catapulted into that position? We replied that our objectives are to strengthen the UN mission—we gave instructions to Peter Penfold to that effect—and to increase and stiffen the operation so that it is deployed further across the territory. We received no complaint about that. On the contrary, Peter Penfold reported that President Kabbah was content with our response and that UN forces were following our suggestion and deployment had begun.

As for ministerial involvement, the response was a routine operational matter. I saw the telegrams and there was no need to invite a submission or interfere with the decision. It was a perfectly straightforward operational matter within ministerial policy guidelines. It had nothing to do with the recent collapse of the peace process. The collapse was triggered not by that exchange—it would not have had an influence—but by the deployment of UN forces in the Makeni diamond producing area, which was controlled by the RUF. The UN forces asked the RUF to disarm, but they refused and took some of the UN forces captive because they feared that they would lose control of the diamond producing areas. That triggered Foday Sankoh's reneging on the Lomé peace agreement and the subsequent troubles. It had nothing to do with the exchange of telegrams. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that on the record.

As for the Lomé agreement, I answered that point earlier. There were no inducements. There was no pressure. There was no bargaining over aid and development assistance. President Kabbah negotiated that deal. It should be remembered that he was besieged by thousands of RUF soldiers—the most belligerent and well-armed force in the country—and he had no forces of his own. There was no United Nations peacekeeping mandate; that would have taken months to achieve. One of the problems is the slowness of the UN's reaction to such matters. There was no alternative to that least-worst, imperfect deal. We will have to live with that fact, but there was no British pressure on the president to sign that agreement.

I have answered the question about Air Foyle. In March 1999, it apparently transported some arms from the Ukraine to Burkina Faso. We referred the matter to the UN sanctions committee, but there is no evidence that Air Foyle knew that those arms would be transported separately by another carrier to the RUF.

Violence and instability are not new to Sierra Leone. They have plagued it for more than 30 years. During the past nine years, since the RUF launched its war against the people of Sierra Leone, the country has been afflicted by unimaginable brutality. The people have seen their hopes and their prospects for peace repeatedly denied. The only time the RUF was repelled was in January 1999, when it besieged Freetown and 6,000 people were killed there. The Nigerian-led ECOWAS force repelled the RUF, which created the circumstances for the Lomé agreement. I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South to the extremely important role played by the Nigerians—and the sacrifices that they made.

After nine years of brutal, bestial war, considerable progress has been made in the search for stability, security and peace. The UK and the international community have sustained President Kabbah, the elected leader, in power. The level of violence and the number of atrocities have been drastically reduced. We have supported the Lomé peace agreement, which offered the people of Sierra Leone a chance of lasting peace and stability. A large UN peacekeeping force has been deployed to help implement it; 2,000 more UN peacekeepers have come to Sierra Leone since British forces arrived, and another 2,000 will follow.

The reconstruction of the country has begun. We are building new and effective armed forces for Sierra Leone, accountable to a civilian ministry of defence. More than half of the former combatants have been disarmed—a considerable achievement—and led away from violence towards a new civilian life. Preparations for democratic elections early next year have begun. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie for leading a visit by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in March 2000. Substantial progress has been made, but the RUF's actions in the past few weeks have posed a challenge to that progress.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked about the RUF demand that Sankoh be released in exchange for the release of hostages. Let me make it absolutely clear that we do not negotiate deals with hostage takers. That has consistently been British Government policy. Sankoh and his followers must understand that they are in defiance of the United Nations and the international community. The hostages must be released safely and in good health. We will not trade Sankoh's freedom. He must face justice. He has a lot to answer for and he must be held fully accountable for his actions. I had a half-hour meeting with him, and challenged him about the diamonds. He became extremely unhappy and frustrated when pressed on the subject.

Our response has been swift and decisive. Our first priority was, and is, to protect British lives. Within days, we deployed the spearhead battalion with back-up forces, which enabled us to mount a swift and efficient evacuation of British and other entitled citizens. We have helped to secure the situation and we deserve praise, not continual sniping. The entire international community is praising us, and I invite the Opposition to do so as well.