§ 2.56 p.m.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet decided to offer assistance to the Government of Zambia in order to rebuild the communications destroyed by the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian forces and, if so, in what form.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, we offered to make available for reconstruction purposes part of the £10 million project loan to Zambia, signed on 24th January. The Zambian Government preferred the loan to be devoted entirely to agricultural development and we were happy to accept this. We fully supported the European Development Fund's recent allocation of 1. 7 million units of account towards the reconstruction of two of the damaged bridges on the Tazara Railway.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister recall the answer he gave me to a similar Question on 20th December, when he said, after agreeing that Zambia had been in the forefront of the troubles in that part of the world, that the British Government were contemplating discussions with the Zambian Government? Are those the discussions to which he is referring, and is he aware that in Zambia itself, despite the poverty which has been increased as a result of the war, a great deal of money has been voluntarily donated in order to repair the bridges, roads and railways that were damaged in these raids?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am aware of what the noble Lord says. I can confirm, following on the earlier answer which I gave to the noble Lord, that we made the offer to which I referred in the original Answer.
§ Lord BARNBYMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether the 350,000 tons of maize, which was recently reported to have been given, has yet been received by 217 Zambia? Secondly, is it not a fact that Zambia has already received £167 million of British taxpayers' money?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, with regard to the maize, I can say that significant quantities of it are now flowing into Zambia. I can also add that we have ourselves agreed to provide 13,000 tons. On our aid programme generally, our programme for Zambia has in the past been substantial; and, indeed, in the year 1979–80, under existing commitments, it will be about £30 million.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the indirect effects of the war has been the inability of the Zambian Government to maintain the rolling stock on the Tanzam railway? Might it not be a good idea to enter into discussions with the Zambian authorities, with a view to offering them the facilities of the British Rail workshops to build new rolling stock for that railway, thus giving employment to people who would otherwise be thrown out of work in this country?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am sure that we would be willing for the British Rail workshops to be used for this purpose. But the problem still remains as to who is to pay for the work.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, as the Minister is aware, communications in Zambia were destroyed in operations carried out by Puma helicopters, piloted by South African officers. Although the noble Lord never admitted that they were there, it has now been admitted that the South African aircraft have, in fact, been withdrawn. Would it be equitable to go to the South African Government and ask them to pay to put back that which they knocked down?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is right in what he says. Action which resulted in the destruction of the bridges was carried out not by helicopters, but by fixed wing aircraft. As for paying for bridge repairs, we have said that we would do what we could, and we have helped in the way that I have announced.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, is it not extraordinary that the Minister now knows that the operations were carried out not by helicopters but by normal aircraft? How does he come to know this now when previously at Question Time he said he did not know?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, there have been a good few changes in that part of the world of late, but perhaps the noble Lord has not noticed.
§ Lord HATCH of LUSBYMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree in general that Zambia has suffered severely since 1965 and UDI when the British Government asked the Zambian Government to assist in the policy of sanctions? Does he agree that in present circumstances, with many thousands of refugees from Zimbabwe to be looked after by the Zambians—and I can quote the figure of 8,000 orphans who are being educated at Solwezi—it is necessary for there to be an international effort to help Zambia back on her feet, and that because Britain has been responsible for Rhodesia, and now Zimbabwe, it is the British Government who should take the lead in mounting an international campaign?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, we are certainly doing what we can within the limits of our resources. As I said earlier, our aid to Zambia in recent years has been very substantial. As I also said earlier, the programme for this year, 1979–80, will be £30 million—a very substantial figure, having regard to our stretched resources.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we very much welcome the aid which Her Majesty's Government have given to Zambia, but does he not agree that it would be difficult to repay the debt owed by the world to that country for maintaining the policy of United Nations sanctions, a policy from which she has suffered far more than any other country?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am sure it is true that Zambia suffered as a result of the firm stand which it has taken in the past few years. That is why our aid programme has been so substantial.