THE Conservatives last night demanded a full Commons statement on the Sierra Leone arms affair from the Foreign Office Minister of State Tony Lloyd as Sandline, the company involved, added to the row by naming the officials it had informed of its actions.

It issued the text of a letter sent to Foreign Secretary Robin Cook on April 24 by its solicitor, Mr Richard Slowe, in which he said the offer of assistance to the ousted President Kabbah was made by Sandline at the suggestion of Mr Peter Penfold, the British High Commissioner in Sierra Leone.

As the negotiations proceeded, full briefings were given both personally and by telephone to Government representatives, Mr Slowe added.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Howard dismissed Mr Lloyd's explanation of his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, set out in a letter to chairman Donald Anderson, as ''grossly inadequate''.

The Minister's letter admitted there were points to correct, but did not state what they were, said Mr Howard. ''He doesn't correct them in full and he doesn't apologise. He should now set the record straight and make a full statement without delay.''

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell also called for a Commons statement, saying Sandline had ''opened up a can of worms''.

If its allegations were correct, it was clear that there was widespread knowledge of its activities within the Foreign Office, he added.

Mr Lloyd told the Committee he only learned last Friday of a Customs and Excise investigation into allegations that British officials had approved the supply of 30 tonnes of arms by Sandline International to opponents of the military regime.

In fact, it emerged in Mr Cook's statement to the Commons on Wednesday, that Mr Lloyd had been shown the documents some time in mid-April.

Supplying arms to Sierra Leone would breach United Nations sanctions. The Prime Minister has warned that any Minister or official found to have deliberately breached sanctions would face disciplinary action.

Downing Street insisted last night that Mr Cook and Mr Lloyd had Mr Blair's full confidence, but the affair does nothing to detract from the impression that the Foreign Office has become an accident-prone department.

Mr Slowe's letter insisted the company had acted with the Government's full approval.

''Sandline was involved quite openly and with the full prior knowledge and approval of Her Majesty's Government with an operation which involved assisting, with both personnel and military equipment, the restoration of the lawful government of Sierra Leone, which was the express purpose for which sanctions were applied in the first place.

''Far from any offence having been committed in these circumstances, it would merit serious criticism that one department of government (Customs) should be investigating, to the considerable inconvenience and distress of our clients, a matter which was conducted with the knowledge and approval of another department.''

Four Foreign Office officials - John Everard, Craig Murray, Linda St Cook, and Tim Andrews - are named as having been briefed by the firm, and Ministry of Defence personnel briefed are said to have included Lt Colonel Peter Hicks in Conarky and Colonel Andrew Gale, British Military adviser to the UN Special Envoy to Sierra Leone.

Sandline said it had been led to believe that FO clearance had been given at head of department level.

The US State Department had also been informed at the highest level, as was Mr John Hirsch, US Ambassador to Sierra Leone.

Mr Lloyd, in his letter to Mr Anderson, said he had been at pains when giving evidence to say several times he was not clear whether the information he had at that stage was accurate or otherwise. He had undertaken, if anything proved inadequate, to correct it at the earliest opportunity. He had discovered there were points to correct, discussed them with Mr Cook, and ''particularly asked him'' to set the record straight in his statement on Wednesday.

Last night he dismissed suggestions he had been hung out to dry by the Foreign Secretary as outrageous. ''I genuinely think it is unfair this is being used by elements to try to undermine Robin,'' he added. ''It is actually underhand and not true.''

Mr Anderson said he saw no reason to recall Mr Lloyd to give evidence, because the apparent inaccuracy was not serious enough. ''Tony Lloyd is a man of considerable honour and integrity. There would be no scintilla of suggestion that he would knowingly have misled the House or the Committee.''