| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, I came to the House prepared to answer a Question about cash machines. I therefore did not ask or inquire about any negotiations which may or may not have taken place. If I am wrong, I shall obviously make it clear in a future communication to the noble Baroness. But, I repeat, I know of no negotiations which are taking place to sell the post office network, which I assume is the point of the question. I have no indication that any negotiations have ever taken place on that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I simply said that this may be part of a transaction to sell off the Post Office—which transaction has failed. That was the point that I made recently. I wanted to know whether the Minister could confirm that negotiations were going on to sell a majority share in the Post Office to a company overseas. That was my question.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said—which I thought was very clear given the extent of my knowledge on this subject. If it is a question of the financial viability of the rural post office network, this particular move can only help, because a part of the fee goes to the post offices themselves.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, does not the Minister know that the whole future of the Post Office is a very live issue and one which, I am sure, concerns all of us in this House? We had a debate on the future of Consignia some six weeks ago. At the end of the debate, because we ran out of time, I asked the Minister whether he would answer in writing the questions that had been raised. I then wrote to him, about three weeks ago. I have still not heard from him.
Is it the case that the Minister does not know what is going on in the Post Office, as he has more or less said to my noble friend Lady Miller?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I apologise if answers to those questions have not been received. I shall immediately make certain that they are answered. However, if noble Lords opposite want to know what negotiations have taken place, or are going to take place, on Consignia, the proper approach would be to table a Question on that matter, and not focus on the subject of cash machines, which is a quite separate issue.
Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that has been made in another place on Zimbabwe. At a convenient moment after 5 p.m. my noble friend Lord Whitty will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that has been made in another place on hunting with dogs.
Education Bill
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Education Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 18, Schedule 1, Clauses 19 to 35, Schedule 2, Clauses 36 to 38, Schedule 3, Clauses 39 to 48, Schedule 4, Clauses 49 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 to 62, Schedule 7, Clauses 63 to 66, Schedule 8, Clauses 67 and 68, Schedule 9, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 10, Clauses 72 to 115, Schedule 11, Clauses 116 to 143, Schedule 12, Clauses 144 to 147,
Schedule 13, Clauses 148 to 150, Schedule 14, Clauses 151 to 180, Schedule 15, Clauses 181, Schedule 16, Clauses 182, Schedule 17, Clauses 183 to 188, Schedule 18, Clauses 189 to 192, Schedule 19, Clauses 193 to 199, Schedule 20, Clause 200 to 210, Schedules 21 and 22.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, while warmly supporting the Motion, perhaps I may express the hope that, for years to come, it will be regarded by those who are responsible for compiling such Motions as a valuable precedent, because it puts into numerical order all the clauses and schedules of this vast Bill—numerical order being the order in which they should be discussed.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, who has many years of experience to support his remarks.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Zimbabwe
3.33 p.m.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Zimbabwe which has been made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
-
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement on Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth.
"As the House will be aware, a Commonwealth 'troika' consisting of Presidents Mbeki of South Africa and Obasanjo of Nigeria and Prime Minister John Howard of Australia was authorised by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to review the outcome of the Zimbabwe elections in the light of the Commonwealth observers' report, and to decide on any action.
"The troika met in London on Tuesday. It had before it the final report of the Commonwealth observers group. This confirmed the findings of the preliminary report which I put before the House in my Statement last Thursday. The group concluded that,
"the conditions in Zimbabwe did not adequately allow for a free expression of will by the electors".
-
"The troika accepted the conclusions in full and decided as a result to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth for one year with immediate effect. This issue will be revisited in 12 months' time, having regard to progress in Zimbabwe, based on the Commonwealth Harare principles and reports from the Commonwealth Secretary-General. I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our appreciation to Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo and Prime Minister Howard and in expressing our full support for their conclusions.
"Three months ago, on 20th December, the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, of which I was a member, concluded that Zimbabwe was in 'serious and persistent violation' of the Harare principles. It was my view at that stage that Zimbabwe should, then and there, be suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. I made this case again at CMAG at the end of January, as did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at CHOGM itself in early March. As the situation in Zimbabwe has deteriorated day by day since December, it follows that we believe that suspension now is fully justified.
"The Commonwealth depends above all on its moral authority, and on the force of the principles which it codified in Harare itself in 1991. That is why the decision was so important for the Commonwealth as a whole, as well as, of course, for Zimbabwe. And that moral authority is what gives this decision its force.
"I am in no doubt, from the way in which the Government of Zimbabwe had sought actively to divide the Commonwealth, that they were, and are, profoundly concerned about the international isolation which suspension signals. Tuesday's decision was, therefore, significant in many respects: above all, for the fact that leaders of two key African nations have taken a clear and definitive stand in defence of the Commonwealth's fundamental principles. They have also underlined Africa's commitment to the universal and indivisible principles of democracy and human rights.
"Suspension is one of the strongest measures the Commonwealth can impose. In the past, countries have only been suspended after the violent overthrow of their elected governments. Zimbabwe's suspension is, therefore, a new departure.
"Moreover, the Commonwealth's decision is in addition to the targeted sanctions which the European Union, the United States and now Switzerland have imposed against the leaders of ZANU-PF. EU Heads of Government also decided, at the European Council in Barcelona last weekend, to ask Foreign Ministers to look at options for further measures.
"What has happened in Zimbabwe is a tragedy, imposed on this once prosperous land by Robert Mugabe. Our commitment and that of the Commonwealth to the people of Zimbabwe remains
- as strong as ever. We have made it clear, since 1997, that the case for land reform in Zimbabwe is very strong, and that we were willing to provide considerable financial support to a land reform process that was transparent, lawful, and which gave priority to the needs of Zimbabweans in overcrowded communal lands. This was a position supported by the international community but rejected by the Mugabe regime.
"At Abuja, in early September last year, we agreed a pathway for Zimbabwe which would have allowed for a resumption of international aid, including from the United Kingdom, for a programme of sustainable land reform implemented in accordance with the rule of law. Respect for the rule of law, and a return to democratic principles and to sensible economic policies, is the only way back. We remain ready to do all we can to achieve this; and we will continue our programmes of assistance for humanitarian and HIV/AIDS projects. But I must tell the House that in the short term the prospects in Zimbabwe look bleak, underlined by the murders since the election of MDC activists and a commercial farmer, and the fact that the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai has now formally been charged with treason.
"Today, it is all the more urgent that the Government of Zimbabwe commit themselves—as the leaders of the Commonwealth have called for—to healing the divisions in the country and taking the path of genuine reform and national reconciliation. We shall do all that we can to support Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo, and other African partners, in their efforts to bring stability back to Zimbabwe. This is what the people of Zimbabwe desperately need. Today, the whole of the democratic world supports them in this goal".
3.39 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We fully share the welcome that she and the Foreign Secretary gave to the conclusions of the Commonwealth troika. We look on those conclusions with a feeling of relief, because if they had gone otherwise the future of the Commonwealth would have been threatened. This is a good moment in an otherwise dark scene. I also share the Minister's desire to pay tribute to Prime Minister Howard and Presidents Obasanjo and Mbeki for having the courage to reach those conclusions, which are said to be already of immense comfort to the brave people of Zimbabwe.
I am sure that the noble Baroness recognises that the conclusions come too late for the murdered farmer, Terry Ford, and for all the other victims of multiple murders. They come too late for all the farm workers who have been beaten to pulp, too late for the security guards who tried to defend the farms and too late for
those Zimbabweans who may be dying of starvation. However, better late than never, I suppose. This is a positive move, without doubt.Has the noble Baroness noticed that the US State Department, which usually moves very slowly, has already come out with a strong statement condemning the intimidation and underscoring the illegitimacy of the Mugabe regime? The Statement that we have just heard speaks of the need to do all that we can. Can we have an assurance that there will be real, positive and continuing efforts to form a coalition of democracies to maintain all possible pressures, including the targeted sanctions and other measures—of which we would like some indication of the nature—to ensure that the Mugabe regime remains under pressure until there is agreement for fresh and democratic elections and a new approach? Does she agree that any arrangement that ended up with some kind of sordid deal with Mr Mugabe and anything that legitimised him would be completely unsatisfactory and would continue to threaten the stability of the region?
What will be done about Mr Tsvangirai, who is mentioned in the Statement? He has now been threatened on trumped-up charges. Can something more be done to prevent this brave man being caught up in the vindictiveness of Mr Mugabe? Do the Government agree that the only discussions that there should be with Mugabe are about the arrangements necessary for new and democratic elections?
Does the noble Baroness agree that southern Africa will recover from its present dire straits only if justice returns and Mugabe goes? Can she explain how it is that, while Mr Mbeki has courageously supported the conclusions, the South African Parliament apparently recognises the legitimacy of Mr Mugabe, which is a fatal move? Does she recognise that the new African economic partnership—NePAD—will succeed only if the rule of law is properly and firmly restored in southern Africa?
Can the noble Baroness tell us about the status of our high commission in Harare now that we no longer recognise the legitimacy of the government there? There are brave public servants in our high commission who are doing valuable work. If we are to maintain the humanitarian aid to starving Zimbabweans that will be needed, presumably we shall reinforce the staff there. Will she confirm the status of the commission and whether we shall be enlarging it if we can so that it can help people in their dreadful plight?
Does the noble Baroness accept that before we do any of that, we need an honest government in Harare—which at the moment we have not got?
3.43 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement. I recognise that the British Government, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, have worked extremely hard on the issue and that we have limited influence over events in Zimbabwe. The older Members of this House may remember that in 1965 some members of my party
were in favour of direct intervention in what was then Rhodesia to prevent a unilateral declaration of independence. I am not aware that any party in this country, even the Conservatives, now proposes such direct intervention. We have limited influence and we have to recognise the need to work with others multilaterally to bring what influence we can to bear. The Government have done well in that task. This is a good day for the Commonwealth. Despite the gloomy predictions from the Conservatives in both Houses of the impending dissolution of the Commonwealth, that prospect is clearly past for the time being.How active a role is it intended that the Commonwealth, and in particular the troika, will retain over the coming months as a watching brief, in view of continuing developments in Zimbabwe? In particular, what contingency plans are we making against the prospect of a further deterioration of the Zimbabwean economy in the coming months, with the likelihood of a spillover of refugees into neighbouring countries? That clearly threatens to destabilise the weak economies of southern Africa as a whole. It therefore seems extremely important to work with the neighbours, particularly Mozambique and South Africa, on limiting the damage to the region and, whenever possible, to provide food and aid. We all recognise that we have to contain a possible further collapse of the Zimbabwean economy. In that context, using the Commonwealth and our other multilateral relations, we should continue to promote good governance as the path to development in Africa, in particular through the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
I have one small partisan point to make. I hope that Anglo-Saxon interventions in promoting good governance in Africa will have an element of humility. A strong comment was made by the US Administration against the idea of fixing elections rather than allowing full democracy. I am conscious that there is sometimes a tendency in this country to demand that other countries should have clear democracies that represent the will of a majority of the people. We do not have that in this country, so perhaps we should be a little more delicate in how we promote standards of democracy higher than our own.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their responses. Of course, like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I fully support the views of the troika. That was clear from my right honourable friend's Statement. The noble Lord then said that it came too late for many of the victims of the violence in Zimbabwe. I hope that he does not think that statements in themselves would have stopped the murderous intent of the regime in Zimbabwe. He cannot really believe that more statements would have been enough. Goodness knows, many Statements were made from this Dispatch Box and in another place about the contempt felt for some of the acts of the Zimbabwean
Government. To imply that statements in themselves stop murderous intent is not fully to appreciate the position.I agree that the statement made by the US State Department is very welcome. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that honest government in Zimbabwe must be the first priority. As my noble friend has said on many occasions from this Dispatch Box, we must not forget that we are dealing with a sovereign government in Zimbabwe and that we do not have the ability simply to say what should be done there and expect that it will happen as night follows day.
As both noble Lords have said, we must look to what can happen next. The EU heads of government instructed Foreign Ministers last weekend to consider further what measures can be taken in Zimbabwe, including possible further sanctions. The United States Government, with whom we are in close touch, have said that they will increase sanctions. The Government of New Zealand have said that they are considering imposing sanctions. The Government of Switzerland have already imposed sanctions, which bring them into line with EU sanctions.
As the Commonwealth troika conclusions made clear, Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo are working hard on a programme of reconciliation. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will be working to ensure that we give what support we can to Zimbabwe, but, touching on some of the economic questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, we shall also look to the IMF and the World Bank to deny the current Zimbabwe regime access to financial support. I am sure that the House would expect no less in terms of sanctions. Given events not so much in the elections but in the run-up to the elections, Mugabe has to be denied what would normally have been his right.
I do not think that we should be in any doubt about this: it is going to be a very long haul indeed. President Mugabe, as he has demonstrated all too clearly, is determined to cling to power for as long as he can. I hope that I have indicated some of the ways in which Her Majesty's Government are working with others to ensure that that is for as short a time as possible.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his comments not only about my right honourable friends in another place but about my colleague in this House, Lady Amos. I wish that she had had the pleasure of making this Statement today. I believe that her endeavour in so many ways—working tirelessly not only in the multilateral forums, one of which she is attending today, in Monterrey, but with many leaders in Africa—has been a key element in bringing us to where we are today. I acknowledge that fully, and I hope that the House will join me in that acknowledgement.
We have to examine what can be done to distinguish the regime in Zimbabwe from the people of Zimbabwe. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, Zimbabwe's economic position is appalling: unemployment is currently 60 per cent;
inflation is 112 per cent; 35 per cent of the adult population are suffering from HIV/AIDS; and 63 per cent of the population are below the poverty line. All that is occurring in a country that was once a hallmark for prosperity in Africa.The suspension of technical aid is one of the sanctions attending Zimbabwe's suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth. That does not involve the suspension of aid which might help in the restoration of democracy. The Commonwealth has drawn that distinction in determining how the suspension will work. It is therefore very much to be hoped that the money for the restoration of democracy will continue to be provided.
As for the arrest and charging of Mr Tsvangirai, Mr Tsvangirai is now out on bail. We can, however, do only a limited amount in a sovereign state. Although we can monitor events, comment, and bring pressure to bear, as we have already done, the Government of Zimbabwe are continuing to harass leaders of the opposition. They must face the consequences of so doing.
As for the status of our mission in Harare, the mission remains, and there is no question of withdrawing any of our diplomats. Some 40,000 British citizens are in Zimbabwe and they will need the protection of our mission there more than ever. I hope that all noble Lords send them a strong message of support from this House for the sterling work they are doing.
3.53 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I join in welcoming the Statement from the Foreign Secretary, and particularly the fact that it has restored the Commonwealth's credibility. I should like particularly to commend its call for the,
- "Government of Zimbabwe to commit themselves to healing the divisions in the country and taking the path of genuine reform and national reconciliation".
I also commend the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. I should, however, like to make one slight alteration to an answer which she gave me in reply to a question I asked her on Tuesday, when I contended that the South African observer mission's report had been politically rigged. The noble Baroness said:
- "the South African parliamentary observers team has dropped its conclusion that the elections were substantially free and fair".—[Official Report, 19/03/02; col. 1230.]
I also revert to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who asked how the Government of Zimbabwe can heal the division when the MDC leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, and the MDC secretary-general, Welshman Ncube, have been
formally charged with treason. Moreover, in South Africa, the ANC secretary-general has recently described Morgan Tsvangirai's arrest and charging as "part of the healing process". Surely that is extremely worrying.
Finally, will the Minister outline what action is being taken to alleviate the severe food shortage, the prospect of mass starvation, and the refugee flight to South Africa which is likely to ensue if the situation is exacerbated?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page