| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister advise the House how we can expect to solve the economic crisis facing Zimbabwe when the very person who is causing it is still in power?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Zimbabwe is not a colony of the United Kingdom. It is a sovereign territory. What the Mugabe regime is doing is ruining a country, ruining an economy and paying absolutely no heed to what is happening to its own people. We and the United States are having to put money in and feed people when their government are paying no regard to them. So it is absolutely critical that the Mugabe regime wakes up and recognises what it is doing to its own country and that those countries around Zimbabwe, which are suffering from that economic mismanagement, also play a role.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say what the Government are doing about Mugabe's successful use of the old colonial bogey? It is receiving a certain amount of support in neighbouring African
countries. Are we putting the facts firmly before these countries or are we leaving it for them to assume that Mugabe is right?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we put the facts before those countries at every conceivable opportunity. I talk about Zimbabwe with my opposite numbers in African countries just about every time I meet them—be that here in the United Kingdom or when I visit their countries. I was recently in New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly and had several meetings with African Foreign Ministers. I have been on talk radio in South Africa discussing the Government's policy on land reform. We leave no stone unturned. However, it is important that we remember that there is a colonial legacy, and a great deal of emotion and resentment connected with it, that is difficult for us to overcome.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Mugabe regime is preventing the distribution of food aid in areas populated by those who do not support him politically? Is that method of using starvation for political ends something best dealt with by the United Nations, in view of what the Minister said about colonialism? What steps are we taking toward such intervention?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there are two types of food relief in Zimbabwe. The first is purchased and distributed through ZANU-PF; we and the international community have no control over that. There are credible reports that it is being used as a political weapon. In the recent district council elections, it was reported that people who voted for ZANU-PF were given food.
There is also the international relief effort, to which we have contributed £32 million, which is separate from that. It is supplied directly to the needy on the ground by UN agencies such as the World Food Programme or by non-governmental organisations. It does not go through ZANU-PF or state structures. We investigate any allegation that our aid is being diverted. James Morris, head of the World Food Programme, said in July that the UN would be out of the country in a second if it encountered difficulties in delivering food to starving people.
Armed Forces: Non-natural Deaths
3.22 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will take steps to ensure an independent investigation into all non-natural deaths in the Armed Forces.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, regulations are already in place to ensure that all non-natural deaths of Armed Forces personnel in the United Kingdom are independently investigated. As with the wider civilian
population, primacy for such investigations lies with the local civilian police force. Cause of death can be concluded only by Her Majesty's Coroner, or in Scotland by the Procurator Fiscal.Where death occurs overseas, the military authorities act in accordance with local legal requirements. Should the body be repatriated to the United Kingdom, it would become subject to the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Coroner or the Procurator Fiscal.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her response but, notwithstanding what she said, is she aware that recent events have seriously jeopardised the reputation of the Army for scrutinising unusual and unexpected deaths? Regarding recent cases, the police have said that in no case were investigations carried out comprehensively or properly. They added that they should not have accepted what the Army told them.
Is my noble friend further aware that the bereaved families are angry and resentful at what they see as cover-ups? The best way to resolve such cases is, rather than the rigmarole that she described, to have a proper, independent inquiry. We need someone above board who cannot be challenged, who is with neither the Army nor the police and who can carry out a proper, independent investigation in all cases.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by expressing my sincere condolences and those of the whole House to the families of all those who have lost loved ones. It must be a difficult time for all of them. I shall be as helpful as possible to my noble friend in answering his supplementary question, but I must say at the outset that I am unable to comment on specific circumstances surrounding any of the deaths at Deepcut while the Surrey police investigations remain ongoing.
Of course, the Army continues to co-operate fully with the police in the course of their inquiries. It has for some time been laid down in Queen's Regulations that primacy in all non-natural deaths in such circumstances lies with the civilian police force. That has been and continues to be the case. The Surrey police took the decision to reopen the case of Private Gray on 30th April following an internal review of their initial investigation. The investigation into the death of Private Collinson was still on-going at that time. The Surrey police took the decision to investigate the deaths of Privates Benton and James following discussion with their families and a subsequent paper review of both cases.
I dispute my noble friend's allegation that there has been any kind of cover-up. The Army are working fully with the police in this matter and will continue to do so.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I said that it was the families, not me, who said it was a cover-up.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I appreciate that the family are concerned and I understand that they have
called for a public inquiry. I must tell the House that the Government do not believe that a public inquiry would be appropriate while the investigation by the local police force continues. I am sure that my noble friend knows, but the House may want to know, that the House of Commons Defence Select Committee will be holding an inquiry. In 1998, the Government introduced a system whereby boards of inquiry by the Army are held and one will be held in this case.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the Ministry of Defence undertake a review of its policy on bullying, because there is a large spate of suicides? Something is going seriously wrong. If bullying is not the cause of those suicides, should not the Ministry of Defence also undertake a review of what emotional support it gives to recruits, because the culture shock of basic training is clearly a considerable cause of stress?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, bullying and harassment of any kind will not be tolerated in the Army or any of the forces. Any such allegations are always thoroughly investigated and immediate disciplinary action taken against those involved if they are proven. On the wider issue raised by the noble Lord, new improved training initiatives have been taken since 1998. They ensure that instructors who look after young people at a vulnerable time of their lives are given improved training in how to support them, know about equal opportunities and understand the vulnerable nature of recruits.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest. Does the Minister agree that the current Surrey police inquiry is the correct approach and will reveal whether further inquiries are required?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I do believe that.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is it not the case that police inquiries into such matters—I have some experience of them—begin only when the facts are reported to them by the military authorities? Is the Minister satisfied that, in the cases that have attracted public attention recently, the military authorities were sufficiently expeditious in reporting the matters to the police?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I have every confidence that, in those cases, the military authorities followed the procedure. I cannot go into specific circumstances because of the ongoing investigation.
Iran: Foreign Secretary's Visit
3.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whom the Foreign Secretary is meeting in Tehran, and what subjects he is discussing with them.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary met President Khatami, the Foreign Minister
Dr Kharrazi and Mr Hassan Rouhani, the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council. Discussion focused on regional issues, including the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which have, in the past, been used against Iran.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |