| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the House will not be reassured by his answers so far? Will he accept that the form of Companies Act inquiry that the Government have chosen has been much criticised in recent years, particularly after the experience in, to name but three, the Guinness, Maxwell and TransTec cases? Will he accept that that is primarily because of the length of time that such inquiries take to report and the freezing of public comment during that period to protect the legal rights of individuals who are the subject of the inquiry?
Will the Minister also accept that there is a suspicion that this form of inquiry has been chosen by the Government to freeze for years public discussion of the issues to avoid potential embarrassment to Her Majesty's Government?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I reject the latter assertion. That is not the Government's position. Do inspections take too long? Sometimes they can. The Secretary of State has requested that the report is brought forward as quickly as possible. It is in everybody's interest—certainly in the interest of the public—to make sure that the job is done thoroughly. That is why a speedy report that can be put into the public domain has been requested.
15 Jun 2005 : Column 1202
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, can the Minister reassure the House that the current Companies Act report will be prepared in a sufficiently short time not to undermine the position of any possible future inquiry, if appropriate, by the Serious Fraud Office, bearing in mind the reasonable time guarantee given by the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am sure that the inspectors will be well aware of those issues as they undertake their report. Obviously, how they go about it and the time frame in which it is delivered is a matter for them and not the Government. However, I repeat, we have asked for it to be produced expeditiously.
Lord de Mauley: My Lords, does the Minister agree, notwithstanding what other noble Lords have asked, that it is essential that the conduct of Ministers and their advisers at the DTI over the whole of the past five years, particularly their decision to back Phoenix and not Alchemy, should form a central part of the inquiry into the collapse of MG Rover?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the powers of the inspector to take evidence are quite wide. I believe that they should encompass the sort of things that the noble Lord requested. On what happened in 2002, I should make it clear that the Government's role was not to run the negotiations between BMW and the potential acquirers. The Alchemy bid for low-volume sports car production failed because it could not agree terms with BMW. I remind the House that, at the time, the Phoenix bid had cross-party support. Mrs Angela Browning, then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said when this was debated in the House of Commons:
"We welcome the fact that the Phoenix bid has been secured. We are particularly encouraged that it attracted financial support from the market".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/00; col 646.]
Dr Vincent Cable said in the same debate:
"May I add a warm welcome to the announcement, and extend congratulations to Mr Towers and his team . . . in the face of much scepticism?".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/00; col. 648.]
He said that the announcement was "unambiguously excellent news".
Zimbabwe
3.11 pm
Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government deplore and condemn this abhorrent crackdown and call upon the government of Zimbabwe to end it immediately. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, to the Written Statement issued yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Jack Straw. In
15 Jun 2005 : Column 1203
it he expressed his grave concern, set out our political response—both bilaterally and in conjunction with our European Union partners—and outlined the humanitarian assistance we have provided to the victims of this outrage. The Statement is available in the Library as well as on the FCO website.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Obviously we concur with the Foreign Secretary's expressed concern. But with more than 20,000 people now burnt out of their homes or having their homes bulldozed, inflation running in that poor country at 144 per cent and mass starvation on all sides, has not the time come to revive the aim of bringing this to a UN resolution? Has that been tried in the past 10 days? Has help been sought from the leadership of Nigeria, which is involved, or of South Africa, which is involved and ought to be more involved? What further steps are the Government prepared to take? Do they now recognise that quiet diplomacy will never solve this problem or relieve the suffering?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the response to the current crisis has been robust and swift. We have raised our concerns directly with the government of Zimbabwe, with our ambassador in Harare, and my noble friend Lord Triesman summoned the Zimbabwean chargé d'affaires on 13 June. Our ambassador to the UN raised this issue directly with the Secretary-General this week. As the noble Lord may be aware, Zimbabwe was raised at the United Nations Security Council by the UN Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs, Jan Egelund, in the context of the humanitarian situation facing southern Africa.
Our position with regard to a Security Council resolution has not, for the moment, changed, As the noble Lord is aware, it is believed that if there were to be such a resolution, it would not be passed, and that would give comfort to Mugabe.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that quiet diplomacy is not succeeding. Is it not the case that megaphone diplomacy—we have all used it in debates—is not working either? What, therefore, are we to do? There is undoubtedly a huge amount of frustration in all parts of the House about the failure to come to grips with the situation in Zimbabwe. Is my noble friend aware that some distinguished commentators, such as Richard Dowden of the Royal African Society, advocates sitting down and speaking to Mugabe? When I asked him what about, nobody knows. Is it not the case that we will have to use megaphone diplomacy and quiet diplomacy since direct intervention, either by British, Nigerian and South African forces, or by another country's forces, is not on the cards, and we had better begin to realise that?
15 Jun 2005 : Column 1204
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, nobody is contemplating direct intervention. Clearly quiet diplomacy is not working at the moment. However, we are working with the United Nations and our European Union partners to bring pressure to bear on the abhorrent regime in Zimbabwe. At some stage, there has to be a change, but the Government believe that this is the way to continue to act.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not return one single asylum-seeker to Zimbabwe while this situation continues? It started again at Christmas, and it is absolutely indefensible. Her Majesty's Government can do something about it, whatever the UN or the African Union think. I would like to see that firm gesture made, especially as Pius Ncube, the very brave Roman Catholic Archbishop, asked for this when he was recently presented with a peace prize.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, I cannot confirm that. As the noble Baroness will know, we continue to provide asylum and other forms of protection for those Zimbabweans who need it. We return only Zimbabweans who do not qualify for asylum, and that is consistent with our approach to other countries, including those with a similar poor human rights record. Each application is considered against the background of the latest situation in the country. Our information comes from a wide range of sources, including international organisations, NGOs and the media.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, there is clearly a large refugee problem already. We read reports of people going to South Africa and being returned from South Africa. Are the Government consulting Zimbabwe's neighbours about the current and likely future refugee problem? Are we consulting Zimbabwe's neighbours bilaterally and through the African Union and SADC about how we will reconstruct Zimbabwe when this regime finally collapses?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |