| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our policy is entirely consistent. While a number of comparisons have been made between Zambia and Zimbabwe, it is important
to recognise that the circumstances are different. Although I accept the noble Lord's point that the European Union made it absolutely clear that the result of the election was not an accurate reflection of the will of the Zambian people, the elections in Zambia were calm, international observers were present—indeed, they had been invited by the Zambian Government—and there was a vigorous free press. That contrasts strongly with what happened in Zimbabwe, where we know that the elections were characterised by violence and intimidation, there were restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, and there was manipulation of the electoral administration and court. Immediately after the elections in Zambia we had no ministerial contact with the new Zambian Government. We have entered into an EU dialogue under article 8. The House will know that the article 96 dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe has failed. We shall continue to pursue a multilateral course in respect of Zimbabwe but, given what President Mwanawasa has done in terms of trying to tackle corruption—and while we remain robust with Zambia about the need for free and fair elections—we are engaging in a different kind of dialogue with that government.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, given that every day brings more evidence of the way in which the recent Zimbabwean elections were blatantly rigged—indeed, the Minister has just reinforced that point—what are we going to do to help the oppressed people of Zimbabwe to achieve fresh elections? Do we favour dialogue with Mugabe or merely that every conceivable kind of pressure should be put on him to ensure that elections are re-run? Now that there is a hint of peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, will that affect the situation in Zimbabwe given that much of Mugabe's money came from that source?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as to our continuing strategy with Zimbabwe, the South African and Nigerian Governments are pursuing a process of dialogue between the MDC and Zanu PF. This was mentioned in the outcome of the Commonwealth troika earlier this year which agreed to suspend Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth. We are supporting whatever dialogue we can. As to our own relationship with Zimbabwe, we continue to work through our EU colleagues and we continue to talk to our SADC partners, the United States and others about the continuing violence. Ten members of the opposition have been killed since the elections and we remain concerned about that. We continue to put pressure on Zimbabwe. The noble Lord may be aware that the EU put a motion to the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva last week, which unfortunately was not taken because a no action motion was carried.
Noble Lords will be aware that the inter-Congolese dialogue process on peace in the DRC failed over the weekend. We are concerned about that and we shall continue to do what we can to ensure that all the parties in the Great Lakes conflict abide by the decisions that have already been taken.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, following the Minister's earlier Answer, now that dialogue has been entered into with the new Zambian administration, do the Government recognise that administration?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think that we have said in this House before that we recognise states, not governments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, has not Mr Mugabe already proved himself to be entirely immune to persuasion by dialogue? What other pressures are to be brought to bear on him to secure a democratic state in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have said consistently that any pressure that Robert Mugabe and the Government of Zimbabwe take notice of will come from within the continent of Africa. It is important that we support initiatives from within Africa such as the current dialogue process promoted by the South Africans and Nigerians. As for continuing pressures, noble Lords will know that a number of countries now have sanctions against Zimbabwe, including asset freezing and travel bans. In addition, I mentioned the motion that the European Union sought to bring last week on human rights in Zimbabwe. There is also a continuing Commonwealth process, which will be reviewed after a year.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with reference to the economic measures taken against Zimbabwe, has the Minister noticed that the regime has just imported more than 250,000 dollars-worth of luxury Mercedes limousines, including an armour-plated one for the use of President Mugabe? Should not the European Union sanctions be extended to cover such goods, which are intended for the use of the leaders of the regime?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have always made it clear that whatever sanctions are put in place should not affect the poor of Zimbabwe. I completely take the noble Lord's point about the importation of luxury vehicles. The European Union has made it clear that we shall go back to the issue of measures at the GAC in May. We continue to be concerned about the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe, but we shall do all that we can to hit the members of the regime. That is where our sanctions are targeted.
Police Retention
2.53 p.m.
Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they intend to require policemen who wish to continue to serve after the end of their normal term to sign a four-year contract.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord's long-standing interest in the issue, but I have to tell him that no final decisions have been taken on the details of a police retention scheme. The Police Negotiating Board is
considering a range of reform measures, which include flexible arrangements to allow managers to retain officers entitled to retire with maximum benefits where they wish to do so.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, my concern, which is widely broadcast in the police service, is that the Government will require a four-year service extension. Does the Minister agree that that is undesirable? Does he also agree that if police officers stay on after the end of their normal service, the Government are getting them cheap, because all that they have to pay is the difference between their salary and their pension rights?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand the reasons behind the noble Lord's Question and his supplementary, but the whole issue is wrapped up in the current negotiations. Given that there is a conciliation process going on—indeed, there is to be a conciliation meeting this Friday, 26th April, before a full meeting of the board on 1st May—it would be counter-productive to try to debate on the Floor of the House the pros and cons of a negotiating process covering a range of police pay issues.
Sinn Fein MPs' Access to House of Lords
2.55 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they have expressed, or intend to express, any views to the House of Lords' Offices Committee about where, if anywhere, Members of the House of Commons, who have offices there but have not taken the oath, may go in the House of Lords.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government have not expressed any views to the House of Lords' Offices Committee and have no intention of expressing a view. The privilege granted to Members of another place in your Lordships' House are matters for the Offices Committee and the House itself to decide.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which I assume she is giving as Deputy Leader of the House. Will she confirm that Members of the other place may normally take parties along the Line of Route, they may stand at the Bar of the House, they may walk the corridors, they may use the Library and they have access to the Members' Gallery without security checks? Since she has said that this is a House of Lords matter, does she agree that there is no reason why this House should follow the decision of the House of Commons? What interim instructions have been given to staff pending the decision of the relevant committee should Sinn Fein Members request access or try to gain access to this House? Will she undertake that this
House will have a debate and an opportunity to vote on the matter, as some of us strongly object to the decision made by the House of Commons if it affects this place?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I confirm that I am answering the Question in the absence of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, who is unable to be in the House today. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is right. As the Members concerned have been given passes, they have access to public areas of the House of Lords. In addition, it is usual for Members of another place to have access to the four places that the noble Lord mentioned in his supplementary question. Pending a decision of your Lordships' House, access to those areas is currently not available to the Members of another place in question. Those matters will be discussed at the Administration and Works Sub-Committee on 30th April and will then come before the Offices Committee, which will consider its recommendation on 14th May. In due course, that will be referred to your Lordships' House in the usual way so that there will be an opportunity for your Lordships to take a decision on these matters.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page