House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Apr 1995

Schedule 1

The Commission: Further Provisions.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 22, line 32, leave out `and' and insert `or

(aa) in the case of a function specified in sub-paragraph (3A), by any committee of, or by one or more of the members of the Commission, and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 29, in page 22, line 39, at end insert--

`(3A) The functions referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(aa) are (a) requiring the production of documents or other material under section 16,

(b) requiring the appointment of investigating officers under section 18,

Mr. Trimble: With these amendments, we come to provisions in the schedule that relate to the way in which the commission will discharge its functions. The amendments relate to an issue that I mentioned in Committee, in respect of which I was glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who has also signed the amendment being considered this evening. We were worried that the provisions in paragraph 6 of schedule 1 are designed in such a way that, whereas the primary functions of the commission, such as that of referring a case to the Court of Appeal, can be discharged only by the commission as a whole or by a committee consisting of not fewer than three members, any other function of the commission can be discharged by a committee or one or more members or an employee, so

Column 946

that, under the schedule, a range of important functions of the commission can be discharged by an employee. It seemed to me that that was not appropriate.

We mentioned the matter in Committee, and had the opportunity since Committee to table what I hope are amendments on which the Minister will look favourably. Of the functions that I have singled out in amendment No. 29, functions such as requiring the production of documents from other organisations, requiring the appointment of an investigating officer and giving directions to investigating officers, should not be dischargeable by an employee of the commission. They should be discharged through the commission, or at least a member of the commission.

I know that there is a provision in the schedule that those functions can be conducted

"under the general direction of the Commission"--

in other words, the commission can give general direction as to the way in which its employees are to discharge functions. But that does not satisfactorily answer the question about functions such as that of appointing an investigating officer.

Earlier, we had a debate about the provisions in clause 18 concerning the way in which investigating officers will be apppointed. The Minister of State laid great emphasis on the power of the commission to control and direct the conduct of investigations and to control the choice of who was to be appointed as an investigating officer. Yet when one reads the schedule, one discovers that those powers--control, supervision and direction and requiring appointments--can be exercised by an employee without the specific decision going through a commissioner. That is unsatisfactory. I very much hope that the commission will not in practice avail itself of the tremendous width that paragraph 6 of the schedule affords. It would not be good practice for any type of commission to avail itself of those broad powers.

I hope that the Minister will look favourably on those amendments, which are sensible amendments to ensure that important functions are discharged, and that each specific exercise of them is under the control of the commission or, at the very least, a member of the commission.

Mr. Hutton: I shall not detain the House long, but I want to say one or two words about the amendments, which are simple but important. Before I do so, I wish to express my appreciation of the role that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) played in Committee. He tabled several important and useful amendments, such as those that we are discussing.

The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to a fundamental issue. Obviously everyone wants the commission to work effectively, with the maximum flexibility. No one wants to place the commission in a straitjacket. We are discussing important powers--powers that might loosely be described as quasi-judicial. They relate to the appointment of investigating officers, the way in which the investigating officers are to perform and discharge their functions and responsibilities, and several another aspects.

Clause 20, which is not referred to in our amendment, gives the commission any other residual power that it considers it may appropriately take in relation to any inquiry. The amendments raise a very simple question:

Column 947

why should those important powers be administered by an individual employee of the commission? The answer is that they should not. It is clear in paragraph 6 of the schedule that there has been an attempt to rein in those powers by making employees subject to the general direction of the commission. However, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann has said, that is unlikely to be adequate to deal with the range and complexity of cases that may confront the commission. The acts of individual employees will be scrutinised or investigated ex post facto-- after the event. I do not think that that is good enough; it would be too late.

9.30 pm

I think that it would be better if that part of the schedule specified in greater detail that those important powers should be exercised only by a committee of commission members or possibly by one commission member and not by individual employees. I do not think that that places an unreasonable restraint upon the commission's flexibility--far from it. I think that it will make the commission's important powers transparent and accountable to those people who are supposed to be responsible for their discharge--the commission members.

If that is not good enough for the Government, I ask the Minister to reflect on another point. We debated in Committee another aspect of the schedule concerning the commission's power to appoint employees. The Government insisted on amending the original draft of the Bill to refer to a chief executive of the commission. That employee is mentioned briefly in the schedule and his powers and general role and responsibility within the commission are not specified.

If the Minister is content with employees exercising powers--even some of the more important powers, such as those referred to in clause 20--I hope that he will consider reserving the responsibility for discharging some powers to the chief executive at least.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: We had a good debate about this matter in Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will forgive my fairly brief reply.

I respect the fact that the commission has been given very wide-ranging powers. In the schedule, we have provided some guidelines as to how commission members should exercise those functions. However, I think that we should resist the temptation referred to by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)--many of whose comments I had great sympathy with- -to get too involved statutorily with the workings and the management of the commission.

I accepted the advice of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) earlier in the evening, and I am sorry that I cannot do so again in this case. We do not believe that the amendments that he has proposed are helpful to the commission--indeed, in one instance they could only confuse, and possibly weaken, the measures that we have provided to ensure that the commission's key decisions are taken at a proper level.

According to amendment No. 29, the decision requiring an investigating officer to be appointed under clause 18 should be made by one member of the commission acting on his own. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that that is a key decision. We recognise that fact, and we have provided that such decisions should be taken by a

Column 948

committee of not fewer than three members. In so far as paragraph 6(3)(d) is untouched, the amendment would lead to confusion between the two provisions.

The hon. Gentleman's amendments are not helpful, because I believe that they would inevitably slow the speed at which the work would be undertaken. The commission must set the policy and decide what activities should be delegated to which members of staff. I emphasise that that is a perfectly normal arrangement, which is common to perhaps all public bodies and most public sector companies. I do not see why it should be wrong for the commission--which, in many ways, we have circumvented with very tough controls in the Bill--to be empowered to act in managing its affairs. For example, preparing papers, obtaining transcripts of court cases and other management details can be undertaken perfectly well by the commission's own staff who are acting within the guidelines and under the direction of commission members. For those reasons, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for pointing out that provision in respect of the appointment of investigating officers. I am delighted to see that it is included in paragraph 6(3). I am glad that the Department considers it important enough to ensure that that function is not discharged by an employee.

I am sorry that the Minister did not appreciate that the same argument should apply to giving directions under clause 19 or the production of documents under clause 16. I can only express the hope that the commission will consist of people of considerable ability and merit, and that they do not avail themselves of, or allow their employees to use, the wide powers and great flexibility that the Minister has provided. The measure would not work well in practice if they did. In view of that, we must hope that the commission is more sensible than I regret the Minister has been.

In view of the lateness of the hour and the desire of hon. Members to contribute to the next stage, I do not intend to comment further or to press the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.--[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

9.36 pm

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am pleased to have played a part in guiding the Bill through the House. The Criminal Appeal Bill is creating new and independent machinery for identifying possible miscarriages of justice and referring them to the courts and reinforcing and extending the power of the courts in criminal appeals. It is a measure of great importance.

Hon. Members have rightly emphasised the importance, in dealing with possible miscarriages of justice, of procedures whose independence is beyond question. Those procedures must also be effective in securing the aim of getting to the heart of cases which continue to raise doubts after the normal processes of trial and appeal have finished.

Column 949

The changes made to the Bill do not affect its basic structure and thrust. They strengthen it and enhance the powers of the commission to do its work. The Bill is now in even better and more effective shape than when it started. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and I am convinced that the Bill will make a significant contribution to the quality of the criminal justice system in future. I wish it well as it goes to another place.

9.37 pm

Mr. Michael: I am glad that the Minister acknowledges that we have been able to make some improvements to the Bill in Committee and today, but it would be wrong to allow the Bill to pass without comment. It is an important measure in restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and it is important that we get it right. If the body that is established under the Bill fails to win the confidence that is so desperately needed, it will be even more difficult to restore confidence in future.

This body will deal with alleged miscarriages of justice and restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and that system's capacity to deal with miscarriages. Its birth has been extremely slow. The Opposition have been calling for the establishment of such a body for a number of years and it now comes with high expectations.

I am concerned about some of the difficulties and shortcomings that remain in the Bill. I am also concerned that some of the comments by a Minister earlier in today's debate suggest that the aspirations that we thought were shared on all sides are not shared by the Government and that the Government intend that the body should be constrained and should almost do the job on the cheap to an extent that certainly is not in accordance with the views expressed by the Royal Commission on criminal justice. That body referred to the need to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system and pointed out that the majority of trials are conducted in a manner that all participants regard as fair. It added:

"But the damage done by the minority of cases which the system is seen to have failed is out of all proportion to their number." It referred also to the burden of work that will fall on the new body. Paragraph 6 of chapter 11 stated:

"There is in theory no restriction on the numbers or categories of cases which the Home Secretary may refer to the Court of Appeal under section 17 since the section gives him discretion to refer cases `if he thinks fit'. In practice, however, as Sir John May observed in his second report on the Maguire case, the Home Secretary and the civil servants advising him operate within strict self-imposed limits."

Paragraph 7 stated:

"The effect of this second criterion was examined in depth by Sir John May as part of his inquiry into the Maguires. We cannot do better than quote his conclusion."

I invite the House to consider that conclusion:

"There is no doubt that the criterion so defined was and is a limiting one and has resulted in the responsible officials within the Home Office taking a substantially restricted view of cases to which their attention has been drawn . . . The very nature and terms of the self-imposed limits on the Home Secretary's power to refer cases have led the Home Office only to respond to the representations which have been made to it in relation to particular convictions rather than to carry out its own investigations into the circumstances

Column 950

of a particular case or the evidence given at trial . . . the approach of the Home Office was throughout reactive. It was never thought proper for the Department to become proactive."

It is necessary for the new body to take on board the capacity to investigate where there is concern over alleged miscarriages. In view of today's exchanges, there will be debates in the other place to ensure that the Government fully understand the need for a proactive body.

Page 185 of the royal commission report refers to the need for the capacity to investigate:

"In our view the Authority should be able to discuss cases direct with applicants if it thinks that this would help it to decide whether a case called for further investigation. It has struck us forcibly that many people who believe that they are victims of miscarriages of justice feel that they have a right to be heard and are frustrated by the fact that they have been unable to put their case in person to the Home Office officials who are considering it. We understand the resource constraints that have prevented the Home Office from interviewing applicants, and we accept that this could not be done in every case. We nevertheless recommend that the Authority be adequately resourced to conduct interviews with prisoners where it believes that this might help. It is not always possible for people who have suffered a miscarriage of justice and then been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment to set out their case clearly and cogently in writing, and an interview may sometimes be the best way of convincing the Authority that the case is one that is worth investigation."

Earlier, the Minister suggested that no cases were waiting to be investigated. I believe that there are, and give the example of my constituent Mr. Mike O'Brien. For the avoidance of doubt, again I make clear that he is not the same Mike O'Brien as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North. He contacted many people, including every Member of Parliament, to assert his innocence. I do not assert his innocence unconditionally, but I am convinced that something needs to be investigated in that case. The commission's establishment will enable investigations in that and like cases.

It is not satisfactory that Ministers appear to have resiled from acknowledging the importance of that role. There is also some inadequacy in dealing with the need for a knowledge or understanding of mental disorders, mental illness or adults with learning difficulties, who are often among the victims of miscarriages of justice. That aspect was dealt with briefly in Committee and there has not been an opportunity to debate it fully on Report. Those issues need to be dealt with fully. I hope that they will be dealt with in another place, and that the Government will make some concessions.

Finally there is the whole issue of disclosure. Members and officials of the commission will be subject to restrictions on their disclosure of information and of evidence. There have been exchanges as a result of the letter from Justice and of the reply from the Minister, a copy of which, further to his promise in Committee, he has kindly provided me with. That still leaves questions to be answered if we are to be sure that there will be full and adequate disclosure to enable all serious allegations of miscarriage of justice to be properly dealt with. If they are, that will help to restore confidence in our criminal justice system--a process that the Opposition believe to be thoroughly necessary. Evidence of the need for that restoration of confidence is provided by the many cases in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others have been involved over the years.

Column 951

We wish success to the commission that will be established under the Bill. We also wish the Bill a successful passage through another place, where we hope that more improvements to it will be made. When the Bill returns to us I trust that many of our reservations about its effectiveness will have been dispelled.

9.45 pm

Mr. Beith: Now that the Bill has nearly completed its Commons stages, and bearing in mind the strong possibility that it may be significantly improved in another place, where I expect it to attract a great deal of close and careful interest, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I wish the new commission every success in its work. I attach great importance to the added public confidence that its work could bring to the police and criminal justice system. I believe that we may have to revisit some of these issues at some stage--especially the capacity of the commission to mount independent investigations in certain cases. Certainly its task will be an important one. We wait with interest to know who will carry out the work and bear these important responsibilities.

I strongly welcome the passage of the Bill.

9.46 pm

Mr. Mullin: I am glad to see the Bill approaching the statute book. I was also glad to see the Government accept amendment No. 35, which strengthens the powers of the commission--although it does not go far enough. I made my views on that known earlier this afternoon. I welcome the Home Secretary--belatedly--to his place in the Chamber, and I draw his attention to some remarks by Lord Runciman which I quoted earlier. I shall not repeat them now, but they were to the effect that nothing in the proposal for a dedicated force of investigators contradicted what he and his colleagues in the royal commission asked for.

One or two other reservations of mine have been touched on today. I do hope that arrangements applying to Scotland will be made soon, because there are quite a number of problems up there. I am also a little worried that the terms of reference might be interpreted as being unnecessarily restrictive. That could lead to some disputes between the commission and the Court of Appeal.

The success of the whole enterprise will largely depend not on anything in the Bill but on the personnel put on the commission. A former Tory Home Secretary told me some time ago that those people would not be like the usual ones who are put on Tory quangos--

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): You should be on it.

Column 952

Mr. Mullin: I am not interested. I have been doing the job for the past few years anyway, and to be perfectly honest I am getting rather fed up with it.

We really will require people who are a cut above the usual quango appointments, because they will have to confront, at some stage, mighty vested interests among the police and in the Court of Appeal. The success of the Bill will also depend on a continuing improvement in the attitude displayed by the new management at the Court of Appeal. Many hon. Members have remarked on an improvement of attitude following the change of personnel in that court--but they could of course change back again. The suspicion has been voiced to me that the recent liberalisation may in some way be affected by the fear that something more drastic might be done to limit its powers. I recall that when the Select Committee on Home Affairs suggested such a commission in 1982, an idea that the Government rejected, the Lord Chief Justice promised that the Court of Appeal would be more open minded when considering appeals, a promise on which he promptly reneged once the threat of such a commission had disappeared over the horizon. I therefore hope that the attitude of the new management of the Court of Appeal will last.

I regret that it is still an unhappy fact of life that someone who believes himself to be the victim of a miscarriage of justice is better off approaching a journalist than a policeman or lawyer. I hope that those days are over, although, even as we sit here, Channel 4 is showing a programme on the Brian Parsons case, which is one of the more serious outstanding alleged miscarriages of justice. There will always be a role in a free country for an inquiring journalist. Since the release of the Birmingham Six, I have received several thousand letters from several hundred prisoners who allege that they are the victims of miscarriages of justice. There is a limit to what one can do to advise them. Organisations such as Justice have also received large numbers of representations from prisoners, far more than I could possibly cope with and no doubt far more than Justice can cope with. I hope that the Bill marks an end to this chapter in my correspondence and, I hasten to add, so does my secretary. I also hope that the Bill marks an end to an unhappy period in the history of the British judicial system and that we can look forward to a greatly improved system in which everyone can have confidence. Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Column 953

PETITIONS

Mr. Kevin Maxwell

9.51 pm

Mr. Robert Jackson (Wantage): I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Kevin Maxwell, who is being tried on a count of conspiracy to defraud contrary to common law.

My constituent desires in his petition that reference be made in the proceedings that he will face

to certain evidence and related material of the Select Committees on Social Security in the present and the previous Parliament which has not been reported to the House and which has not been published. Your Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons will give leave for said records, transcripts, documents, correspondence and notes . . . to be produced to the Hon Mr. Justice Phillips at the Central Criminal Court so that he may decide if the documents should under normal common law principles be disclosed to the parties in the trial; and if the Hon Mr. Justice Phillips so decides, the Court be permitted to make reference to them.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I give notice that I intend to table a motion forthwith to give effect to this petition. To lie upon the Table.

Column 954

Schools (Darlington)

Mr. Alan Milburn (Darlington): I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 2,000 of my constituents who are alarmed at the impact of Government funding cuts on local schools. It has been signed by parents, governors and teachers, including head teachers, who are concerned about rising class sizes, the threat to teachers' jobs and diminishing school budgets. They are angry that Government policies are threatening children's education in Darlington. I hope that the Government will act swiftly in response to my constituents' concerns.

The petitioners request that

the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Education to immediately review her policies to ensure that Darlington schools are not prevented from offering children the highest possible educational standards.

To lie upon the Table.

Column 955

Rwanda

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Dr. Liam Fox.]

9.54 pm

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): I had no idea, when I put my name into the ballot for an Adjournment debate, that the theme of the Government's policy in Rwanda would become so tragically relevant after the events of the past weekend in Kibeho camp. It was because I feared such an event that I put my name in. It was an event that could have been anticipated. I shall ask a great many questions during the debate. I realise that the Minister will not be able to answer them all, but I hope that--perhaps by letter afterwards--I will get a reply to the questions that I raise. Let me deal with the events of the weekend. It will never be clear how many people were slaughtered, but it was clearly thousands. One can only deplore the attempt by the Government of Rwanda to minimise and disguise that death toll. The international community now has to demand that those responsible for the carnage are brought to trial as rapidly as possible. It is clear that the slaughter was conducted by the army of Rwanda and that the army officers responsible must be punished. The silence of the Vice-President of Rwanda, General Kagame, who is also the Defence Minister, is disturbing. He is also seen as the major power within the country.

I met General Kagame when he visited London a few months ago. Perhaps the Minister did as well. At that time, General Kagame was seeking the assistance of the international community in setting up a judicial system to bring the Hutu perpetrators of genocide to trial. He quite correctly said that, unless the people of Rwanda could see the perpetrators of genocide brought to justice within Rwanda, the country would never be able to come to terms with itself. At that time, he was talking about the Hutu killers, but he now has to ensure that the Tutsi perpetrators of the latest massacre are brought to justice. I understand fully the difficulties of the Government of Rwanda in dealing with armed militia within the camp, but the test of that Government will be how they deal with their own offenders. Overwhelmingly, the blame for the situation in Rwanda must lie with the leaders of Rwanda itself, and they must shoulder that responsibility, but there is a wider responsibility in a world in which that desperately poor and overcrowded country is not helped to join in the prosperity and development that should be part of the lives of its people.

We must also face up to the fact that European colonialism, which used the tribes of Africa for its own selfish reasons, has left a legacy of infinitely worsened community relations. The legacy--in this case, of Belgium and France--is grim. Every involvement that they have with Rwanda and Burundi is tarnished, and there is a need for us to increase our leadership at the Security Council. I can understand why we argued at the beginning that it was not an area of our concern or a traditional sphere of influence for us, but unless some countries with unblemished hands take a lead, the situation will become worse. I want to make it clear that I sought this debate not because of humanitarian aid. I do not wish to attack the Government for failing to supply aid, water, food or

Column 956

shelter. That is clearly not true. The British contribution has been good. It was slow, but it has been good and of high quality. That is not the point of the debate. I am concerned not with the performance of the British Overseas Development Administration but with that of the Foreign Office. There is a major distinction. While talking about aid, I want to pay tribute, as I am sure that the Minister would, to the immense contribution made by our aid agencies, for the immensely skilled and courageous work that they are doing in bringing food, water and shelter to the victims of those horrors. There seems to be an inability, because of lack of political will, for the United Nations, and that means overwhelmingly the permanent members of the Security Council, to take the actions that are necessary to avoid those catastrophes. Undoubtedly, the horrors of Rwanda could have been prevented or at least diminished. There are further horrors around the corner either in Rwanda or Burundi, of that I am convinced. Shall we act to stop those horrors?

It is interesting--that is a neutral word--that the Aid Commissioner in Brussels, Emma Bonino, is recommending with her colleagues the cutting off of non-humanitarian aid to Rwanda. In the papers this morning, the recommendation that was said to be emerging was that humanitarian aid would be cut. It is no better that humanitarian aid is not being cut. The implications of that recommendation-- It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Dr. Liam Fox.]

Mr. Worthington: The recommendation that there should be a cutting of non-humanitarian aid is simply calamitous. I hope that the Minister will clarify what is happening.

Non-humanitarian aid can be used for things such as setting up the judicial system, schools and clinics or remedying the appalling lack of infrastructure. Non-humanitarian aid is a sign of medium and long-term political will by the rest of the international community. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the British response to the EC Commission's recommendation will be hostile. I noted today in a press release put out by the noble Baroness Chalker the statement that the United Kingdom has fulfilled all its pledges to help Rwanda towards rehabilitation and reconstruction.

The United Kingdom and European Union would not be fulfilling their pledges towards rehabilitation and reconstruction were the recommendation of the EC Commission to be accepted. I strongly recommend to Commissioner Bonino and all her colleagues that she would be better occupied in finding out why there has been a lack of political commitment to solving the problems of Rwanda than in tampering with aid. I strongly suggest that she should look at the role of France and Belgium in that respect and find out what can be done to obtain a consistent European contribution to the solution of the problems of Rwanda.

It is transparently clear that the need to establish a judicial system is paramount, but only yesterday we had an announcement from New York about the appointment of 12 judges to start the work of the genocide trials. That is welcome, but there has also been talk about the need for 600 magistrates to tackle the problems of Rwanda.

Column 957

The situation in Kigame prison is totally untenable. The prison was built to hold 2,000 people, but now has more than 8,000 people in it without anyone being charged or any dates in prospect for action. When we neglect that situation, we promote the sort of slaughter that we saw at the weekend. That is the sin of neglect.

Why is it that stimulators and perpetrators of genocide, such as the director of Radio Mille Collines and other prominent supporters of the previous Government, are allowed to live in luxury and walk the streets of other African countries such as Kenya and Cameroon? In February, the programme director of Radio Mille Collines gave an interview in Cameroon on French television. For 24 hours a day, that radio station repeatedly incited murders of Tutsis and drew up an endless list of wanted opponents. Why are such people allowed to wander free? One year after the genocide, not one single person among the politicians who masterminded it has been brought to justice. What will the Government do to expedite the work of the genocide tribunal? Is it really realistic to ask the remarkable Judge Goldstone, whom I have met--his contribution to the development of South Africa has been astonishing--to supervise the genocide tribunals in Bosnia and Rwanda? There is a lack of credibility about that. On the issue of slowness of action, when the Hutu militias set themselves up in the camp to terrorise people, why was it not possible to stop them becoming established and preventing an orderly return to Rwanda? When more than 60 countries were asked to contribute forces to the policing of camps, why was the only offer from Zaire, whose forces, to put it mildly, are not known for their reliability? The reason why other troops were not offered was the chaos of the United Nations.

Concerns exist about the role of President Mobutu. In February, "Africa Confidential" reported that he accompanied the widow of the former President of Rwanda to China on an arms buying spree. Is that true? UN Security Council resolution 918 imposes an arms embargo in the region, but it is simply being ignored. Will the Government confirm that that is so? If the permanent five on the Security Council had made a commitment and given support, the situation could have been stabilised, and intimidation stopped. We now have an incomparably worse position because of the failure to take simple action to prevent military organisation in those camps. The military training camps are being fed by our aid.

I want to hear what the Government's policy is in Rwanda in the medium and long term, as against simply giving aid. We must face up to the scale of the disruption in central Africa. Perhaps 2 million recent Rwandan refugees are in neighbouring countries such as Zaire, Tanzania and Burundi. Imagine the tension among local people living next to camps of hundreds of thousands of people who receive guaranteed food when they have nothing. Those are desperately poor countries with their own problems. There is no way that they can cope without the help of the prosperous world. We cannot go on ignoring that. If we perpetuate that sin of neglect, it will cost us more and more.

Column 958

A huge regional problem affects Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania and Zaire. Last year, those nations and the northern powers such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and Germany agreed about the need for a regional conference to attempt to tackle those hideous problems, but what has happened? In November, our representative at the UN Security Council, Mr. Gomersall, said that the proposed regional conference could play an important role, and that he hoped that all concerned would work to ensure that it was held as soon as possible. Six months later, I am not aware of any progress being made towards the holding of that conference. We need real commitment to solve Rwanda's problems. It was gratifying that, in January, the donors pledged nearly $600 million, but what has happened to those pledges? What money have we and others committed and actually delivered? The UN underperforms because we allow it to do so and because of our lack of commitment.

That takes me back to the initial response to the Rwandan debacle. I remember the sense of shame when, following the death of Belgium paratroopers, UNAMIR--the United Nations Mission in Rwanda--forces were reduced to 270. Following the genocide, it was decided to increase forces to 5,000, but it took month after month after month for them to get there.

In November, Oxfam was begging for the commitment of the 5,000 troops promised. They were desperately needed, but a lack of political will existed among the UN's permanent members, including Britain. The permanent five ruled out sending their own troops; I do not necessarily quarrel with that. However, when the African nations offered their forces, none of the permanent five was willing to provide them with the logistical support and equipment that they needed to get there and to be established there. By then, however, there were already 20,000 militia in the camps, who were basically running them.

I should like the Government to explain their attitude to the deployment of our forces in Rwanda. We took the attitude to start with that we should not put in our own forces. Mysteriously, a group of British soldiers, engineers I believe, then went to Rwanda on a three-month contract. Their work was superb. They were put there because commercial interests had not turned up; the firm engaged to do the logistical support was not yet ready. The troops were then withdrawn. In Rwanda, there is a desperate need for buildings at the prison, for schools and for offices. A contingent of engineers could transform large parts of Kigali quite quickly, but we seem unwilling to send such people. I should like the Government to explain their medium and long-term contribution to Rwanda and their position--not what their aid is.

Will the Minister explain Britain's diplomatic contribution? I gather from a press release today from the Minister for Overseas Development that there has been a decision that we shall reinforce our diplomatic presence in Kigali and in Bujumbura. I hope that the Minister will explain what that means. It seems strange that we should have had a short-term contract for a charge d'affaires in Kigali which runs out at the end of April and that we should then decide to have another extension of the contract. That is short -termism when Rwanda's problems are clearly long term; it sends exactly the wrong kind of message and increases the insecurity there.

Next Section

Home Page