House of Lords
Tuesday, 21st May 2002.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Zimbabwe
Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What are their current policies towards Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, our policy towards Zimbabwe is to work with African and international partners to restore democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since the election the erosion of human rights has proceeded apace in Zimbabwe and that farms are still being taken over illegally, which has a consequent effect on the livelihood of farmers and farm workers and therefore on hunger and unemployment? Am I right in believing that the sanctions that were imposed by the European Union on Mr Mugabe and his cronies in respect of foreign travel and foreign assets do not apply to the spouses and families of those people? If so, should not those sanctions be extended, or are we content that Mrs Mugabe could still come here and shop at Harrods?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, is quite right. The number of politically motivated deaths has been assessed at 55 by the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum. We have continued to express our concern about the violence, harassment and intimidation that continues in Zimbabwe. We also continue to be concerned about the economic collapse of the Zimbabwean economy and the implications that that has for the people of Zimbabwe. It has been estimated that about 7 million Zimbabweans—about 60 per cent of the population—may be dependent on food aid by the end of the year. The noble Lord was also right to suggest that current EU sanctions do not apply to spouses and children. The General Affairs Council will clearly wish to return to that. It will discuss Zimbabwe at its next meeting in June.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation in Zimbabwe is rapidly deteriorating? That is due not just to political strife but to a large degree to regional drought and the oncoming famine in the region. What measures are Her Majesty's
Government planning to take in order to alleviate the famine that will inevitably affect thousands of innocent Zimbabweans?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, points to the regional problem with respect to drought and difficulties with food. That has been exacerbated by the Zimbabwean Government's economic policies and the fast-tracked land reform programme, which has meant that farmers have not, for example, planted in critical areas.
On the measures that we have taken, noble Lords will know that we were the first to introduce a supplementary feeding programme into Zimbabwe. We did so in September last year and we contributed £4 million to that. We have also contributed an additional £6 million to UN agencies—the World Food Programme and the World Health Organisation. The FAO and the World Food Programme are currently assessing the regional food security situation. There will be a conference in Johannesburg in June to consider that.
Lord Judd: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Government's anxieties about the economic collapse in Zimbabwe. What are the implications of that for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, in which she has been playing such a crucial role, and for southern Africa as a whole? How is that affecting the need for the leadership in that partnership to be taken by the leaders from southern Africa themselves?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is absolutely critical that the leadership of the New Partnership for Africa's Development comes from within the continent and the southern African region. One reason that we have sought to build a partnership between the G8 and NePAD is precisely because we recognise the importance of that leadership coming from within Africa. NePAD has done some good theoretical work on political and economic governance issues. The proof of that will be in its implementation. That is particularly important in view of the situation in Zimbabwe, which we do not regard as a test case for NePAD; it points to the serious issues that can arise in African countries and which require leadership from across the continent.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if NePAD is not prepared to implement measures for good governance, the rule of law and human rights or to establish mechanisms for monitoring the performance of those matters in member states, confidence in the G8/NePAD process would be severely undermined? I refer in particular in that regard to the arrest of 11 journalists since the new press law was introduced in the middle of March and the prospect that all the journalists who refuse to sign up to Moyo's application will be deprived of their livelihood on 18th June. Those serious matters need to be dealt with at the top level by NePAD.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that the whole NePAD/G8 process could be undermined if African leaders did not take political and economic governance issues seriously. That is absolutely essential to the NePAD agenda. With regard to journalists in Zimbabwe, we have always deplored the action taken by the Zimbabwean Government in relation to the media. We believe that freedom of expression is a core principle in a democratic country.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while the children in Harare are starving and apparently hunting in dustbins for food, is it correct that Mr Mugabe has been attending a UN conference on child poverty in New York? Is it also correct that the blood-stained chief of police, Mr Chihuri, has been attending a police conference in Lisle? Who permitted these sanctioned individuals to travel? Why were they not apprehended and sent back to their own country at the very least, and what do the sanctions mean if they allow people who have committed or sanctioned atrocities to wander round the world at will?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the US was obliged to let Mr Mugabe attend the UN, just as, under international treaty obligations, France was obliged to allow Mr Chihuri to attend the Interpol meeting. I believe that Mr Mugabe was consigned to within 22 miles of UN headquarters. Mr Chihuri is vice-president of the executive committee of Interpol.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is correct. The EU common position provides that member states may grant exemptions from these measures where travel is justified on the grounds of attending meetings of international bodies. And, yes, Mr Mugabe did attend the UN special session on children.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we could hear shortly from my noble friend Lord Acton, who knows a little about this matter.
Lord Acton: My Lords, while I applaud the efforts that the Government have made in giving aid to Zimbabwe in the desperate circumstances of hunger in which so many people find themselves, can my noble friend say whether, in the light of the conference next month, the Government will consider giving still further aid?
Baroness Amos: Yes, my Lords. We are concerned about the situation of ordinary people in Zimbabwe and we shall review the humanitarian position.
Railways
2.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether Railtrack's refusal to agree any further contractually guaranteed journey times with passenger train operators will contribute to the achievement of improved reliability and growth targets contained in the 10-year transport plan.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, track access agreements are matters for the train operating companies and the network infrastructure manager. In the event that the parties fail to agree, the Rail Regulator has the power both to determine the terms of an access contract and to direct the parties to enter into one.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Is he aware that four train operators, including Great Western Trains and South West Trains, have been told by Railtrack that it can no longer guarantee timetable paths? Does he agree that that therefore means that no timetable can be relied upon? Of course, it also means that Railtrack will not have to pay compensation to any of the train operators for delays or for digging up the track. Given that the Government are probably paying three-quarters of Railtrack's costs at present, is there anything that they believe they should be doing about this before the administration ends?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page