| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Democratic Republic of the Congo
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What humanitarian plans they have developed for long-term recovery in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, long-term recovery in the Democratic Republic of the Congo depends on a resolution of the conflict and the establishment of a representative national government and state institutions. The Government believe that the Lusaka peace process provides the right framework for achieving long-term peace. In the meantime, we have more than doubled our humanitarian programme in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to a total of more than £10 million this year. That is channelled through the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and international non-governmental organisations.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear Answer. Is he aware of reports during the past few weeks that more than 15,000 people have been displaced in the north-eastern parts of the DRC, because of ethnic and political fighting? Such violence greatly hampers the humanitarian effort in the region.
Does he believe that there is a role for Uganda, whose troops remain in the region, in bringing to it greater peace and stability?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to raise the particular problems in the north-east of the country, which has a long-standing record—if that is the right word—of conflict between different groups, and in which Uganda has an understandable, legitimate security interest. Any progress in that or any other area of the country depends on the Lusaka accord and all parties, including Uganda, working on that basis.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while welcoming the Prime Minister's commitment to the New Partnership for African Development, and his undertaking while in Africa to lobby for support for it at the forthcoming G8 meeting, what will those proposals do for people who live in areas that are not under state control, such as the RCD-controlled entity in eastern DRC? Can the noble Lord say anything further to our recent debate on sub-Saharan Africa about what the Government are doing to halt the illicit exports of coltan via Kigali, which are taking up all available cargo space to the exclusion of legitimate consignments from that city?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord's comment about the Prime Minister's initiative. It is not exactly a news story that I—or anyone else on these Benches—think that the Prime Minister does a good job. At a time when, it is suggested, there is a fair degree of cynicism about political leaders, I hope that the whole House will commend the Prime Minister on embarking on such a campaign to deal with poverty and conflict in Africa. That campaign has been followed through since his conference speech last year. On that front, if not on others, it cannot be said that things are driven by opinion polls, focus groups or anything else; it is being done because it is the right thing to do. I shall write to the noble Lord on the specific question of cargoes and freight.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we also commend what the Minister just said about the Prime Minister's initiative in Africa, but I should like to pursue the question one stage further. The noble Lord will know that the Lusaka accord required the withdrawal of all the armies of the neighbouring states from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and he will recognise that that has not been completed. Will his right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary bring their influence to bear in upholding the Lusaka accord, in respect of Zimbabwe, in particular? Zimbabwe has withdrawn 10,000 troops only until after the presidential election is completed and has, so far, given no indication that those troops will not return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to continue the plundering of that tragic state.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the question asked by the noble Baroness. The Lusaka accord is the absolute bedrock of the Government's
position as far as concerns the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As the noble Baroness rightly said, that accord includes the withdrawal of foreign troops, as well as the process of reconciliation in the area.I emphasise, in the language of the day, that the strength of the Lusaka accord comes from the fact that it was driven forward and signed within the Congo itself. There is local ownership of it, if that is the right phrase, and it is supported by the United Nations. I assure the noble Baroness that that it is at the heart of the Government's thinking that we should press forward on that basis, including on the specific point about Zimbabwe that she raised. The noble Baroness will know that the recent UN panel report said that Zimbabwe's presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was motivated primarily by commercial concerns. It is the Government's strategy to deal with that.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, can the Minister say what arrangement there is for following up or monitoring progress under the Lusaka accord? By whom is it done? Is it done within the Congo or by some of the neighbouring states, the Commonwealth or the United Nations?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, as I said, the strength of the Lusaka accord comes from the fact that all the interested parties are behind it, signed it and supported it. By its presence and by other means, the United Nations is giving it a fair wind. The situation is moving on all the time. The next meeting of the Inter-Congolese dialogue, which is an important part of the Lusaka accord, is scheduled to take place on 25th February. That is the next step along the road that, we hope, will show some success.
Church of England: Episcopal Appointments
2.53 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether there are any plans to change the arrangements for the appointment of bishops and archbishops.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, currently there are not. In 1998 the Church of England set up a review to examine the working of the Crown Appointments Commission and related matters, but within the existing framework of the 1976 agreement between Church and state on the appointment of bishops and archbishops. The group's report was completed last year, and a Church steering group is now considering its recommendations.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. I take a little comfort from the use of the word "currently" in the first sentence.
I hope the Minister will agree that it is possible to have a sensible discussion about episcopal appointments, without necessarily getting involved in a debate about the disestablishment of the Church of England. Does he not find it extraordinary that, in 21st century Britain, we still appoint archbishops and bishops largely along the lines laid down by Henry VIII in 1533?
Would not the most satisfactory solution be for the Prime Minister to make it clear that the choice of the new archbishop—and of future bishops—should be a matter entirely for the Church and that he would welcome the introduction of a new democratic structure that would allow individual churchgoers a voice in deciding who will lead them, as happens in other Churches that are part of the Anglican communion? Those arrangements are described with great clarity in the excellent report of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, entitled Working with the faith into the workings of the Crown Appointments Commission.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the method of appointment used by Henry VIII which, he said, was generally similar to the present one. I think that the method of early retirement that was imposed by Henry VIII is not current in the Church of England.
The report was an admirable document. The best way forward is to follow the track that I mentioned in my Answer. The Church of England should come to its conclusions itself and then make further such reforms as may be deemed appropriate.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I declare an interest. As had been made clear, I chaired the review of the Crown Appointments Commission. Our report was issued in May last year.
I entirely support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, about the extremely odd situation in which the leaders of our Church are still chosen in great secrecy and by a programme that often seems to involve the Prime Minister asking the Church to keep guessing until it comes up with the name that she or he first thought of. Does the Minister accept that the ordinary members of the Church—the voices from the pews—would rather like to believe that our Church leaders were free to speak according to their own conscience and faith and were not dependent for preferment or promotion on a political judgment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree entirely with that. There is an admirable model to the west of the border between England and Wales, where the Church, which has been disestablished since, I think, 1923, has an entirely different method of choosing bishops and archbishops and has, at the moment, an admirable archbishop who certainly speaks his mind on every appropriate occasion.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page