---

Chagos Islands

11. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): In what circumstances Chagos islanders may visit the Chagos Islands. [183365]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): Under the immigration law of the British Indian Ocean Territory, all persons other than members of the United Kingdom or United States armed forces and Government officials require a permit to visit any part of the territory, including both Diego Garcia and the outer islands. With regard to the Chagossians, we have twice put in hand preparations to organise a visit for them to the outer islands—most recently in 2002. Those plans fell through for reasons beyond our control, but we remain genuinely prepared to reinstate the visit, should the Chagossians make such a request.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister not accept that the Orders in Council signed on 10 June, which prevent the Chagossian people from exercising the right to return to the islands that they won in the High Court in this country in 2000, is an absolute disgrace? Does he not
 
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1252
 
also accept that this issue should be debated on a substantive motion before the House and not be hidden behind Orders in Council? The reality is that pressure from the United States on the British Government overturned the legitimate court order made in this country regarding the legitimate right of return of the Chagossian people. Is it not time that the Minister met representatives of the Chagossian community to sort this out, so that those people can exercise their legitimate right to return to the islands from which they were quite disgracefully removed in the 1970s?

Mr. Rammell: I have already met the legal adviser for the Chagossians. I have also met my hon. Friend and the Father of the House to discuss their concerns on this issue, and I am more than happy to meet any other representatives who have similar concerns. We cannot change what happened in the past. We are legislating on the situation as it is today, some 33 years after the islands were depopulated. Successive British Governments have compensated substantially in regard to this issue, and we are trying to take this process forward. We most certainly took this decision on our own account, and not because of any representations made by the United States Government.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Many in the House will find that very difficult to believe. Many people feel that the treatment of the islanders by the British Government has been shameful over many years, and this latest expedition just confirms how little the British Government have done to protect their interests. Would it not be more honest simply to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to the United States, perhaps in return for an appropriate sum, rather than maintaining the pretence that we have any interest in serving their inhabitants?

Mr. Rammell: If that is a substantive contribution, I am not sure that it meets up to the situation that we are facing. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on what he would have done had he been in Government and been presented with the independently conducted feasibility study that made it abundantly clear that maintaining long-term inhabitation was likely to be prohibitive, and that resettlement of the islands would be precarious. In those circumstances, it would be unreasonable for any Government to permit repopulation 33 years after the Chagossians left the islands. I am not absolving the British Government of responsibility. As I said, successive British Governments have compensated substantially on this issue, but to allow a return at this stage would be unreasonable in the present circumstances.

Zimbabwe

12. Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): What recent discussions he has had with Commonwealth leaders about democracy in Zimbabwe. [183366]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): We are in regular contact with our Commonwealth partners about Zimbabwe. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with the South
 
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1253
 
African Foreign Minister on 13 June, and will do so again when he visits South Africa next month. I discussed the issue at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa last week. We will continue to work for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Turner: We hear about June, July and then August. It is not only my Zimbabwean constituents who are concerned about the situation in their country. Many people are concerned about the abuse of food aid as a political weapon, militia beatings, police-condoned assaults on Opposition politicians, and attacks on the press and judicial independence. Why is democracy in Zimbabwe apparently an optional extra for this Government?

Mr. Mullin: It is not, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. As I have said before—and as we said in the debate on this subject the other day, at which he was not present—hardly a day passes without the subject of Zimbabwe passing across my desk or that of one or other of my colleagues. We take the situation in that country very seriously, and we have made it clear to all parties that we want to see a return to democracy and the rule of law there.

Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok) (Lab/Co-op): In his discussions with Commonwealth leaders, has the Minister analysed how we got into this terrible mess with Zimbabwe? Will he discuss with them ways in which the failure to address the land question can be avoided elsewhere in the Commonwealth and, in particular, ways in which similar issues that are now arising in Namibia can be dealt with?

Mr. Mullin: We have addressed the land issue, and we made it clear from the outset—and made money available some years ago to Zimbabwe to help it redistribute land through the rule of law—that we fully acknowledge the unfairness of land distribution in that country. What we do not accept, however, is the criminal way in which it has gone about redistributing land. It remains the case that we are ready to assist in the event that some future democratic Government in Zimbabwe set about trying to reform the land ownership structure in a responsible and democratic way.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Should we not be exploring how the Ministers and senior officials of Zimbabwe can be made personally accountable and ultimately criminally liable for their acts?

Mr. Mullin: Certainly, that is an issue that will arise after the return of democracy in that country, but it will ultimately be a matter for the people of Zimbabwe.

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab): Is it not a fact that each of the Commonwealth countries neighbouring Zimbabwe has a number of refugees from Zimbabwe? That spells out clearly the problems being faced by the people of Zimbabwe. Is it not time that President Mbeki
 
13 Jul 2004 : Column 1254
 
took a strong lead to end the problems that the poor people of Zimbabwe are facing because of the regime there?

Mr. Mullin: The South Africans are under no illusions about the extent of the crisis in Zimbabwe. They have the best part of 2 million refugees from that country, and I am sure that they are as frustrated as we are by the lack of progress. I know that President Mbeki has been trying to achieve dialogue between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change. So far, we see no evidence that that is working. As I said, I am sure that they are as well aware as we are of the scale of the problem, and they share our frustration.

Iraq

13. Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent) (Con): If he will make a statement on the Government's reaction to reported corruption at the UN during the oil-for-food programme in Iraq. [183367]

The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We support the high-level independent inquiry approved by the UN Security Council on 21 April into the administration and management of the oil-for-food programme. Obviously, it is inappropriate for us to comment on the specific allegations of wrongdoing until the investigation has been completed.

Hugh Robertson: I thank the Minister for that answer. But given that Iraqi sources estimate that $10 billion was corrupted by Saddam Hussein and his immediate entourage, and that that money is being used to fund the insurgency that is threatening both Iraqi civilians and our troops, can he give the House more details about when the Government were first aware of this scandal, and what specific moves they are making to support an investigation, independent of the UN, which cannot of course conduct an investigation into its own corruption?

Mr. O'Brien: The Government became aware of some allegations. We were able to take some action on those during 2001. Before that, there were rumours for some time of things happening in Iraq. We were aware that the way in which this operation was being carried on meant that it looked like some illegal surcharges were being placed on the price of Iraqi crude oil. It looks as though there were some illegal surcharges on humanitarian contracts through inflated prices, agreements with suppliers to supply inferior items at reduced price with refunds of the difference, and a US dollar fee for unloading and transporting goods within Iraq. A number of issues were therefore being examined. Certainly, it has become clear that the independent investigation must consider all of those. We support the work that Paul Voicker is doing in carrying that out.

---