IF THE British Government had any plans to send conventional forces for training in Libya then “of course” it would come to Parliament and discuss it, the prime minister has said, after being questioned on the issue by the SNP.
SNP Westminster group leader Angus Robertson said the critics of UK policy on Libya “even include” US president Barack Obama.
The MP for Moray told the Commons there was “widespread reporting that the UK Government is about to commit to send ground troops to Libya to train government forces there”, asking: “Is this true and why has Parliament not been informed about it?”
David Cameron replied: “Well of course, if we had any plans to send conventional forces for training in Libya, then of course we’d come to this House and discuss it.”
He added: “Of course Libya is in a state that is very concerning right now and everyone has to take their responsibilities for that.”
Britain, he said, wanted to see the formation of a unity government in Libya: “There is progress with prime minister (Fayez) Seraj, who can now lead that government of national accord, we’ll want to hear from him what assistance and help that we think should be given in Libya, and countries like Britain, like France, like America, like Italy, will definitely try and help that new government, because right now Libya is a people-smuggling route, that is bad for Europe and bad for us.
“And also you have the growth of Daesh in Libya, which is bad for us and bad for the rest of Europe, but if we have any plans for troop training or troop deployment in a conventional sense, of course we’ll come to the House and discuss it.”
Robertson said the UK spent 13 times more bombing Libya than securing the peace after the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.
He said: “The critics of UK policy even include President Obama of the United States, so will the prime minister give a commitment to bring the issue of any potential Libyan deployment of any British forces to Parliament for approval before giving the green light for that to happen?”
Cameron responded: “I’m very happy to give that commitment. Look, I’m very clear it was right to take action to prevent that slaughter that Colonel Gaddafi would have carried out against his people in Benghazi, I believe that was right.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here