Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Sierra Leone

6. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [58675]

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The security situation in Sierra Leone since the holding of credible and peaceful presidential and parliamentary elections on 14 May has been encouraging. Our forces have played an important role in restoring stability, through their programme of advice, training and support to the Sierra Leone armed forces and Ministry of Defence. There is much work still to do, however, if we are to achieve our objectives of developing a professional, effective and accountable armed forces and MOD, which are sustainable without substantial external assistance. The UK-led international military advisory and training team will, therefore, continue to help build the capacity of the Sierra Leone armed forces and MOD over the longer term.

Mike Gapes: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the decisive action that our Government took two years ago to defend and secure democracy in Sierra Leone? May I also congratulate our armed forces on the work that they have been doing there? Will he indicate further how long it will take before we can be absolutely confident that this job is fully completed?

Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend is right to give plaudits to our armed forces. The United Nations force—UNAMSIL—has 17,500 men in the country and it has also played a role.

We are only a month away from the elections that took place on 14 May and we have to make a proper security assessment. That is currently being done. The best outcome would be for Sierra Leone to become safe enough for us to seek a reduction in the number of our

17 Jun 2002 : Column 9

forces and then seek their withdrawal. However, as I said, IMATT, which is British led, will continue its work in the longer term. Clearly, it will play a role in the key issues of rebuilding the Sierra Leone army and providing back-up to the MOD in that country.

Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent): Does the Minister agree with the assessment of many of those who have served in Sierra Leone that there can be no long-term settlement to the troubles of that country until all the diamond mines are returned to Government control? Does he agree with that assessment? If so, what are the British Government doing about it?

Mr. Ingram: That question moves away from the military role that our armed forces and the MOD will play in all that. There are key components in making that country whole again and gaining control of one of the key—perhaps the key—drivers of the economy is paramount. We have to consider the way in which that can be best achieved.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): I am bound to say that the diamond mines have an impact on the security situation in Sierra Leone. They underline the heavy commitment that we may have to make if the situation in Sierra Leone deteriorates again.

The Army's commitments remain heavy and yet there is growing speculation that the Secretary of State will shortly announce cuts in the target size of the Army. Will the Government take this opportunity to end the speculation and reaffirm their commitment to a fully trained Army strength of 108,500, as set out in the 1998 strategic defence review, so that we can fulfil commitments such as that in Sierra Leone?

Mr. Ingram: We fulfil our commitments everywhere our people are asked to be deployed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the leader of the Conservative party—when he had the role that the hon. Gentleman now undertakes—criticised what we were doing in Macedonia. He said that it was a step too far and that we could not deliver our objectives in 30 days and get out within that time frame. We did that, because of the capabilities and the planning of the military chiefs who deploy our people. We are more than satisfied that we can continue to meet our commitments. Clearly all commitments and the capability in reaching strength have to be kept under review, because we have to seek to meet the targets that we set. That is our objective.

In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I answered the question about the security element of the diamond areas—not diamond mines—and I said that that was a key component. He clearly did not listen to my answer.

Mr. Jenkin: I remind the Minister that the original commitment to Sierra Leone was for a few months but, years later, we are still there. He also declined to recommit to the SDR target of 108,500 and, in fact, the figures published at the end of last month show an Army trained strength of only 100,900 and that the Government are working to a reduced target of 107,900. Why have the Government secretly abandoned the 108,500 target set in

17 Jun 2002 : Column 10

1998 and how will he achieve any target given that Labour has managed to add a net total of merely 30 men to Army manpower over the past four years?

Mr. Ingram: A number of points are raised within that question. I know that it is not the place of the hon. Gentleman to give answers at the Dispatch Box, but if he is suggesting that we should not have continued to deliver in Sierra Leone because of all the other elements that he brought into play—the implication of his question is that we should withdraw because of manning strengths or if the situation deteriorates—I would like to debate that matter with him. There is no SDR target with the figure that he quoted. He has got that wrong as well.

Mr. Jenkin: The adjutant-general told the Select Committee on 1 November 2000:

The Minister is saying that that figure has been abandoned. How can we maintain operations in places such as Sierra Leone when the Government are quietly abandoning their recruitment and retention targets?

The 1998 strategic defence review said:

It promised


Is it not the truth that the Government have completely failed to deliver Labour's promises on recruitment and retention in the armed forces? Overall manning is being cut; defence equipment programmes are being delayed or cancelled; ships are being scrapped or sold; Tornado and Sea Harrier squadrons are being—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is too long.

Mr. Ingram: I do not know which question the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer—[Hon. Members: "All of them."] Well, I shall try to do that, but certainly not at the Dispatch Box now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just answer the question on Sierra Leone.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman asked many questions; I am not sure, however, that there was one on Sierra Leone. He just kept dropping in those two words to demonstrate a relationship with his set question.

The figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted on the SDR was a notional figure. It is not the figure on which the working assumption has been based. If he reads parliamentary answers to parliamentary questions, he will discover the precise figures. I cannot give them off the top of my head, but I shall write to him with all the information that is on the public record.

The hon. Gentleman did not say—I never expected him to—what he would do in Sierra Leone. As I understand it, he is saying that there should be a very considerable increase in Tory defence expenditure. He has not given a figure, however, and perhaps he can help us on that.

17 Jun 2002 : Column 11

NBC Missile Threat

8. Mr. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central): What recent assessment he has made of the threat to the UK of a missile strike containing (a) biological, (b) chemical and (c) nuclear warheads. [58678]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We take very seriously the ambitions of certain states to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. We recognise that some states of concern may already be capable of targeting United Kingdom forces deployed in areas close to them and of targeting the territory of some of our friends and allies.

However, we assess that there is currently no significant threat of a ballistic missile strike against the mainland of the United Kingdom delivering biological, chemical or nuclear warheads, but we do continue to monitor developments very closely, particularly as they might affect deployed British forces.

Mr. Lloyd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the long-standing view of successive British Governments, both Conservative and Labour, that we would not use nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike? Does he agree that as far as biological and chemical weapons go, the establishment of a proper control and inspection regime should be at the top of the world's agenda and that those countries, such as the United States, that sabotage that kind of regime put not only themselves at risk, but the rest of us as well?

Mr. Hoon: I can confirm that there has been no change in the essential rules that we follow on the use of nuclear weapons. I have made it clear before how important it is to recognise that they would be used only in what are described as extreme conditions of self-defence. I want to emphasise that it does not help the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons to spell out precisely what those circumstances might be. I can stress, however, that nuclear weapons would be used proportionately and consistently with our obligations in international law.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): Given the historic agreement between Russia and NATO, does the Secretary of State support the US decision to withdraw from the anti-ballistic missile treaty last December, or does he support the Labour Members who have been criticising it so much?

Mr. Hoon: As I have consistently said to the House, the ABM treaty is a matter between the parties: the United States and, formerly, the Soviet Union, now its successor state, Russia. In those circumstances, it is not a matter for the British Government to make observations about the appropriateness or otherwise of that treaty having come to an end. However, the fact that there is now an agreement to effect a very substantial reduction in the offensive weapons systems available to both Russia and the US must be cause for congratulation, and it is a great success.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North): Both the MOD's White Paper and the national intelligence estimate to the US Senate conclude that the missile threat is very remote compared with the threat posed by smuggled

17 Jun 2002 : Column 12

weapons of mass destruction. Our Chief of the Defence Staff and his predecessor are among the many experts who have expressed doubts about missile defence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wise to base British defence policy on military intelligence, on intelligence in a broader sense and on British interests, and not on a desire to appease the obsessions of the US Republican hawks?

Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend was referring, as I think he was, to the prospect of the United Kingdom becoming involved in missile defence, I am sure that he knows my answer better than I do. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall repeat it: we have not been asked to participate in any such system, and unless and until we are, our position remains that we wait to see what system the US decides on.

I do not think that my hon. Friend's initial analogy is appropriate. Even if I accepted his argument as being true, it is not appropriate to say that simply because there is a greater threat, we should avoid taking defensive measures against the lesser threat.

David Burnside (South Antrim): The Secretary of State will agree that the assessment of any threat to the United Kingdom from any source depends heavily on the competence of our intelligence services—MI5, MI6 and our Army special forces. Is he aware that a deliberate black propaganda campaign is being carried out by a number of newspapers and by a television programme, to be shown later this week, to blacken the reputation of special forces who have served in Northern Ireland—the same special forces who served in Afghanistan? What is the Ministry of Defence doing in a proactive, positive way—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too wide.

Next Section

IndexHome Page