| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Our approach to Zimbabwe has been to try to support, and not punish, Zimbabwe’s people. We provide direct assistance to the poorest and most vulnerable people in Zimbabwe. Our aid is helping to form part of a response to the Zimbabwean food crisis. This year, more than half the population is likely to need food aid, as Conservative Members and others have said. We will continue to work with the World Food Programme, which, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, has just
issued a further appeal for the coming months, which we are considering, and to which we will respond shortly. The international community has so far managed to keep malnutrition below emergency levels. I make no higher claim for the humanitarian support that we have been able to provide.
Through our protracted relief programme, we have also reached some 2 million people in the most drought-prone areas of Zimbabwe with seeds, tools, livestock and fertiliser to help them build basic rural livelihoods. The programme has also helped to provide care for the most chronically ill in their homes. We have, for example, supplied some 600,000 people with safe drinking water. As was mentioned, my noble Friend Baroness Vadera announced yesterday that we have just committed some £50 million for a second five-year period for the programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall expressed concern about the politicisation of food aid in Zimbabwe. She is right to highlight the problem, which we strongly condemn. It is the Government of Zimbabwe who have politicised food aid. The food that they have purchased is distributed predominantly to their supporters. Donor-funded aid—aid provided as a result of British money—is channelled through non-governmental organisations and UN agencies, and there is rigorous monitoring to ensure that it goes to people who need it, not to those who Robert Mugabe’s Government would like to receive it.
Kate Hoey: I accept the premise of my hon. Friend’s remarks. However, although the NGOs may take responsibility up to a point, there is no doubt that out in the rural areas, way beyond the cameras, the journalists and the media, food aid, which has been paid for by my constituents, is being distributed on a political basis according to whether or not people are supporters of ZANU-PF.
Mr. Thomas: As I have said to my hon. Friend, there is no question but that the politicisation of food aid is taking place. Given the monitoring that we ensure takes place and for which others, including those who work for the World Food Programme, take responsibility, the food aid that is distributed by donors goes to the intended beneficiaries. There is no doubt that the food that is purchased by the Government of Zimbabwe goes, sadly, not necessarily to those who need it, but overwhelmingly to the supporters of that Government.
I take my hon. Friend’s point in this respect: we cannot afford to relax about the way in which food aid is distributed. We need to continue to monitor to ensure that food aid is consistently distributed to those who should benefit from it. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members have evidence of any abuse of donor-funded aid, we want to hear about it immediately.
The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk asked about forced displacement and what the UK Government are doing to support victims of forced displacement. We have provided the International Organisation for Migration with some £5 million for food, shelter, blankets and other lifesaving equipment, to try to ameliorate the impact of forced displacement. We provide humanitarian assistance more generally too to those who have been deported, and we try to offer some protection from abuse to those terribly vulnerable
groups who are suffering as a result of forced displacement—unaccompanied children, for example
The hon. Gentleman asked about the safety of British nationals in Zimbabwe. He knows, as do other hon. Members, that we take extremely seriously our duty of care for British nationals across the whole of Zimbabwe. There is a full consular service in Harare and we are making efforts to ensure that all British nationals, including those who are elderly and vulnerable—another point that was made—are aware of the assistance that we can provide through the embassy, and that which is available from other relevant welfare organisations. He also asked whether there are consular contingency plans. Of course, we do have such plans, as we do for all countries should a situation change. I am sure that he will understand if I do not go into more detail at this time.
Let me come to the point raised by all Conservative Members and two of my hon. Friends—the concern about the EU-Africa summit that will, I hope, take place in Lisbon later this year. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea alluded to the huge governance challenges that there are in Africa. Others referred to the HIV/AIDS crisis, the lack of water, and the fact that too many of Africa’s children do not have access to primary school education. Those are issues that the EU should discuss with African Governments, and many bilateral discussions are indeed taking place, but they should also take place at a regional—EU-Africa—level. The last thing that we would want to happen is for those concerns about the broader needs of African nations to be overshadowed by the attendance of Robert Mugabe.
I am aware of the report in The Sunday Times that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea mentioned. He will perhaps understand why I am not going to speculate on how that report appeared. However, I can re-emphasise that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, said in her opening remarks, no invitations to the EU-Africa summit have been issued. We are some way away from the point at which that might happen, and the agenda is not yet settled. The hon. Member for Cotswold pointed out that Robert Mugabe did not attend the summit in France, which is a helpful precedent. I assure hon. Members who have strongly articulated their concerns that there will be plenty of opportunities for the House to consider the question of invitations, as well as the agenda.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: With great respect, the Government need to be clear on the negotiating stance that they are going to take with regard to Robert Mugabe’s attendance at the summit. Will the Minister give a clear answer on that matter, if not now, by way of written answer before the House goes into recess, which means that there will not be much chance to discuss it?
Mr. Thomas:
As I said, I recognise and understand the profound concern about what might and might not happen in relation to the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon. Again, I say gently to the House that we are not at the point where invitations have been issued, and there will be many opportunities to debate what will or will not happen. I will of course bring to the attention of my
right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and others, the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House.
Several hon. Members referred to the governor of the Reserve Bank. Let me make it clear that I believe that he should be on the EU’s targeted measures list. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, he has not sought, thus far, to come to the UK, and he would not be welcome if he did.
Hon. Members asked what further steps we are taking to investigate and seize the assets of those on the visa ban list. More than 130 individuals are on that list, although it was suggested that there are only 120. We are looking into the activities of a whole series of businesses to see whether they are in any way, accidentally or deliberately, helping members of the ZANU-PF elite to get round the ban on assets. Alongside the investigations that are already under way, we are always keen to receive any information that hon. Members might have to help us to seize the assets of those on the list.
It being Six o’clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Illegal Raves (South-West Norfolk)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
6 pm
Mr. Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise concern about unlicensed music events known as raves, which are causing huge distress, damage and expense in my constituency. Throughout the summer months they have become a regular feature, and in the past few weeks, residents in Marham, Narborough and Cockley Cley have suffered. Unlicensed music events are hugely profitable to the organisers, and they have nothing to do with the altruistic values of young people. They are a product of a get-rich quick formula that tramples on the rural economy. Costs are minimised, no tax is paid, and there is no regard for anyone or anything but the profit made.
There are plenty of first-class licensed music venues in Norfolk, where events can be held legitimately and safely. I spent a memorable evening last summer with my family at a concert in Thetford forest. The event was extremely well managed by the Forestry Commission; excellent arrangements for public safety, public facilities, car parking, sound and lighting showed just how such events can be staged legitimately. Why should local people put up with unlicensed events on their land if all they amount to is a money-raising exercise for the organisers? Lawbreakers are getting rich at the expense of others, which in itself is criminal, in my opinion.
Constituents tell me that they were terrified by the experience of having up to 1,000 people on their property or near their home, and said how disgusted they were by the litter, human waste and excrement and drug paraphernalia, including needles, left behind after a rave. The Government have a duty to protect the law-abiding majority from the antisocial behaviour of others, and while I am conscious of the rules relating to Adjournment debates, I would like to devote a large proportion of this evening’s debate to the shortcomings of the current legislation, and ask the Minister to consider the situation. I do not seek draconian powers that would affect private parties. I know that recent changes have made it easier to disrupt illegal raves, but the reality is that current regulations are not effective deterrents and do not achieve what I believe the objectives of the police should be.
Legislation is geared towards the termination of a rave. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows the police to instruct rave-goers to leave an event. However, unless substantial numbers of police officers are quickly mustered, without notice, in rural areas at night, it is extremely difficult and potentially dangerous to try to end a party already in full swing. One journalist in the national press described the effects of an attempt by police to break up an illegal rave last year:
“Two hundred riot police from five counties dispersed the 1,000 party goers. During the clashes a police car was set on fire and nine officers were wounded, with injuries to police including a suspected broken collarbone and a severed finger. At least two revellers were also injured. Thirty people were arrested and released on bail.”
Given this risk, police have to judge whether intervention is realistic. In many cases, they can do little more than monitor the event, and the organisers of the raves rely on that fact. They know that they will get away with it; that is why it is such good business for them. It appears that the organisers of the Marham event arranged for motorcyclists to help move their mobile equipment en route to the event. They also had heavies present, wearing hoods and balaclavas. The police attended but soon withdrew when it became clear that they could only monitor what was going on.
It often seems to the public that the police are not doing all they can to prevent a rave, but the site of the party is often revealed only a few hours or minutes beforehand, specifically so that the police have no time to act. That means that the law relating to the prohibition of “trespass assemblies”, which requires an application to the district council for a prohibition order, cannot be applied. The police have the power to direct people away from a rave in a 5 mile radius of the site, but in the maze of country lanes that criss-cross Norfolk, that would demand huge numbers of police and is not workable.
In practice, the principal offence is:
“Failing to leave the site of a rave as soon as reasonable, once directed to do so.”
Again, Norfolk constabulary simply does not have the resources to round up and arrest hundreds of young people who have no intention of leaving. Does the Minister agree that it would be helpful to make attendance at a rave an offence? What about an offence of organising, or being involved in organising, an event?
I am also concerned that the law focuses on single events. It does not pave the way to prosecuting persistent organisers or serial rave-goers. Power to confiscate equipment relates only to the failure to leave today’s event, and is not retrospective. Norfolk constabulary told me:
“Because the legislation is aimed at stopping an event, interrogating and possibly arresting people leaving a site at the end of a rave is not within the spirit of the law.”
Does the Minister agree that the ability to gather vital intelligence about regular rave-goers, the identity of the organisers or plans for future raves would be hugely helpful to the policing process? Would not it give the police a fighting chance of making progress?
What about the impact of such events on local people? Current legislation suggests that the only disruption caused by a rave comes from music which,
“by reason of its loudness and duration and the time at which it is played, is likely to cause serious distress to the inhabitants of the locality.”
Although I do not underestimate the disturbance that continuous loud music causes, the illegal gatherings have other, equally distressing effects on local communities.
The presence of hundreds of people and vehicles in rural areas can cause terrible damage to farmers’ fields, livestock and crops. We must not forget that when those are damaged, that has an impact on the livelihood of farmers going about their legitimate businesses. A farmer in my constituency recently wrote to me, saying:
“to protect my pigs from party-goers, I had to be present on my field from 3.30 in the morning until 8 o’clock the following night. On one occasion when I left for 5 minutes, I returned to find 4 men chasing them around their pens.”
Is it any wonder that he was devastated to discover that the law appears to be on the side of the party-goers rather than on his side?
I have been advised that section 63 powers cannot be enforced in remote rural locations where there are only a few local residents. The law requires
“serious distress to be caused to the inhabitants of the locality.”
That seems unfair—one law for urban areas and another for the countryside. It also suggests that a rave in the countryside is acceptable because only a few people suffer. Like my constituents, I take exception to that principle.
As the excellent Norfolk Farmwatch organisation told me, a small number of residents in a remote location can feel even more vulnerable than those in a village or town. I know of one elderly couple in my constituency who barricaded themselves into their isolated home for more than 12 hours while 1,000 revellers passed within feet of their front door. Two weeks later that couple were still trying to clear up the debris left in their barn. In a civilised society, how can the law ignore such people?
The existing criteria also fail to take account of the significant distress or damage caused to wildlife and plant life. Under section 28P(6) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it is an offence to “intentionally or recklessly” destroy or damage any of the features of a site of special scientific interest, but only if the person knows that they are within an SSSI. Most rave-goers will be entirely ignorant of the existence of an SSSI and will therefore not be liable for any damage that they cause, no matter how serious. Why should ignorance be a factor? Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales both have powers to make byelaws under section 28R of the 1981 Act for
“the protection of a site of special scientific interest.”
As far as I can determine, the power is rarely if ever used to control the harm caused by ravers. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.
It is true that a number of rave organisers have been successfully prosecuted, but there is concern about the leniency of their sentences, which give those making huge profits little incentive to give up their business. There is an urgent need to review maximum sentences and even to elevate such offences from the magistrates court to the Crown court. Those found guilty face three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500. A Crown court could impose sentences twice as severe. Such a move would reflect the seriousness with which the Government view such crimes. Should the fines imposed take into account the cost of clearing up the site? Yes, they should. Many local landowners have spent thousands of pounds clearing their land with no help from anyone—yet another illustration of the imbalance that the rural economy has to fight.
The final issue that I want to raise is licensing. Norfolk constabulary and our local councils have told me that the Licensing Act 2003 could unintentionally facilitate raves, because it is possible to submit a temporary event notice application. The police then have just 48 hours to object, but objections can be lodged on only crime and disorder grounds. There is a view that the prospect of excessive noise might not be sufficient for the council to refuse the application. The 48-hour limit could be a particular problem if the application is
delivered to a rural, largely unmanned police station on a Friday afternoon. If a licence application is granted, the benefit to the police is that it would bear the name of the organiser, against whom charges could be brought for noise and other disturbance. That in itself is reason enough for rave organisers to continue to hold unlicensed illegal events.
In conclusion, the problem of raves continues, despite recent changes in legislation. Far from the perception that the police are not using existing powers, it seems that they are in part prevented from acting because of legislative constraints. We will dissuade people from holding and supporting illegal gatherings only if the Government show that they are serious in their intent and provide an effective deterrent. I have known the Minister as a fellow parliamentarian for some time, and he has been honourable and fair in all my dealings with him. I hope that he will give an assurance to local landowners and others in constituencies such as mine throughout the country that they have a right to protection against these illegal events.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |