HL Deb 01 November 2002 vol 640 cc450-70

12.53 p.m.

Lord Howell of Guildford

rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 8th October, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2530).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall direct my remarks to both this Motion and the Overseas Territories (Zimbabwe) (Restrictive Measures) (Amendment) Order since they cover similar ground. That will make for a better debate.

I make clear that in raising these matters we on these Benches are not against, in principle, the purposes behind the two measures. Indeed, if anything, we want them to go much further. We believe that a global approach to the problem of sanctions and restrictions on Zimbabwe is needed and that as many financial centres should be covered as possible. But the decision to pray and to amend, as we are doing, reflects our extreme concern that sanctions are not biting and that more can be done, both by the European Union and by the United Kingdom, to stop evasion and to tighten travel bans.

Although I shall make some criticisms of the policy behind these measures and the policies they lead to, those criticisms are not directed at the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. She has fought nobly and strongly for addressing the Zimbabwe situation to more effect, and I know that she is as frustrated as some of us are at the turn of events in Zimbabwe and the difficulty there is of facing up to and dealing with it effectively.

We are discussing what might be termed "catch-up" measures. They extend existing EU restrictions on the movement of Zimbabweans and on provisions for the freezing of funds and other restrictions to British Overseas Territories, including the Cayman Islands, which is an important financial centre, and to Cyprus sovereign bases.

What kind of assets is it believed will be caught by the extension of these powers? The total figure of assets so far frozen—the noble Baroness gave the figure the other day in your Lordships' House—is £120,000, which is a very small sum. It defies belief that the assets of the Mugabe regime and its associates held in various banks are only £120,000. I suspect they must be at least 10 times, if not 50 times that sum. That figure is, frankly, ridiculous. I am interested to know why the figure so far is so modest and whether these measures will enlarge it a little.

The United Nations panel on illegal activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo submitted a report to the president of the Security Council on 15th October giving details of massive involvement by Zimbabwean defence force personnel, numerous Zimbabwean politicians and officials and several mining and diamond companies, most of them implicated in asset manipulations and bankrolling activities for the Mugabe regime.

The panel speaks of, crucial groups linked to the army of Zimbabwe". That report, although aimed at the Congo, casts light on the funding position and the finances of the Mugabe regime. It lists 29 companies which the panel says should have financial restrictions imposed on them. Presumably they have assets somewhere—perhaps some in the United Kingdom. I do not know. It lists a further 85 companies, 12 of them with headquarters based in the United Kingdom, which are described as violating OECD guidelines in the Congo/ Zimbabwe labyrinth.

So the question is whether the assets of those companies that are involved have been investigated. We can therefore become a little clearer about how Mr Mugabe is financed and what assets from these companies are kept in the UK. If the UN panel believes that some of these companies should have financial restrictions on them, have we proposed to the EU that such financial restrictions should be imposed? Can we meanwhile act unilaterally in relation to companies that are based here, with headquarters in London, if we have the power to do so? Do we need to wait or should we urge our EU colleagues to come along when they are ready to do so, when they cease to be quite so hesitant?

That is the position on the freezing of funds. We get more and more light cast, as the days go by, on the gigantic pattern of activities, some of them criminal, which fund and feed the Mugabe regime and enable it blithely to disregard the outside pressures on it.

The second measure deals with named individuals. Again it wishes to extend powers to target individuals to the British Overseas Territories. The number is listed. We do not believe that the are working. There are far too many loopholes and exemptions, which seem to mean that Zimbabwean officials, many of whom have been identified as having involved themselves in extremely undesirable activities, can move around much too freely.

One problem is that the exemptions are rather wide. The Minister in the other place quoted them as being, on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation, or on grounds of attending meetings of international bodies or conducting political dialogue that promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe". Those seem wide exemptions, which make it understandable how undesirable people are still able to move around.

The order brings the total of named individuals to 79—which is, of course, the number identified in the latest EU regulation with which the order is designed to catch up. But that still leaves out a long list of names in the UN panel report that I mentioned of people who have been illegally involved in both the Congo and Zimbabwe. I have added three names in my Motion. They are all mentioned in the UN panel list as individuals who ought to be sanctioned or banned from travel, but many more qualify. My Motion also proposes that the list should include families and dependants, which would increase the number again. If there is any doubt about the need to increase the number, the New Zealand Parliament has just banned a list of 142 undesirable Zimbabweans who it believes should not be able to travel outside their country.

Meanwhile, there have been what appear to us to be flagrant breaches of the ban. For instance, back in the summer, there was the example of the sinister police chief, Augustine Chihuru, going to Lyon in France—apparently he had some exemption or was able to exploit some loophole. Since then, EU Ministers recently decided to move the EU-South African Development Community meeting from Copenhagen, where it had been intended to be held next week, down to Maputo in Mozambique to allow Mugabe and company to attend. I know that there are two sides to the argument: the outcome for pressure on Zimbabwe may be better in the end as a result, but that move is certainly questionable. It would be useful to hear the Minister's view on whether it is right for British Ministers or officials to be attending.

However, it is not just a question of issuing more orders or statutory instruments. Such measures must be turned into properly implemented policies. The Government keep saying that they cannot intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign country—apparently not in this case, although that is a selective doctrine these days—that they cannot act on their own and that anyway, these things are best left to other African nations to deal with.

I am not sure that I agree with that; the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe and Morgan Tsvangirai do not, arguing instead that the international community should intervene. But even if one agrees with that hand-binding position, the United Kingdom could take some action on its own immediately from London. We could then urge others in the European Union, the Commonwealth and the United Nations to follow.

I should include in those measures: implementing the UN panel recommendations and pressing the EU to do so as well; extending sanctions to spouses and dependent children, as does my motion; eliminating the travel ban loopholes; and ensuring that the travel ban list complies with the list already issued by the US Government. The new list does not seem to cover individuals specified in the UN report, which I recommend to anyone interested in the matter. It does not cover the same group of people; we should certainly make the lists match.

We should review and, where practicable, freeze the assets held in the UK of all companies implicated in bankrolling Mugabe, and draw up and publish a dossier of all known or suspected Zimbabwe torturers and human rights abusers. Perhaps we should even state that some of those people may have to stand trial for crimes against humanity, as has been done by the Americans in the case of the gangsters in Baghdad and Iraq. Such crimes have certainly been committed.

We should extend the embargoed goods list, which at present seems perforated and permeable, and press the EU to do likewise. I understand—no doubt some of your Lordships will want to comment on this—that the Mugabe regime is kept well supplied with the appurtenances of power, such as black Mercedes, and so on. That should be reconsidered. I add to that the point made by my noble friend Lord Carrington the other day. If funds have been allocated for land reform—I do not advocate new expenditure, but if such funds are available—surely some of them should go to the Zimbabwean farmers who have been evicted, cannot get hold of their money and are without any resources or support, rather than to be spent on further land reform and budgetary support directed by the illegal government in Harare.

The Zimbabwean crisis is at present moving towards a dangerous catharsis. There is now an ongoing threat to the Matabele people. The effects of Zimbabwean economic chaos are beginning to strangle the whole region and are threatening all of the vision and hopes embodied in the New Partnership for Africa's Development and other development programmes for southern Africa.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has pledged that the integrity of targeted sanctions must be maintained. It is important that that worthwhile pledge—no doubt made with all good intentions—is carried into practice. That is why we have raised those issues and prayed against or sought to amend the orders by the Motions on the Order Paper. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 8th October, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2530).—[Lord Howell of Guildford.]

1.8 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I speak briefly in this debate to seek further information from my noble friend the Minister. First, to what extent—I use my words with some precision—are the Government responsible to the European Union for any steps that they are considering taking or have already taken? I ask that bearing in mind that the European Union itself has great difficulty accounting for its expenditure and income. Few people know exactly how the finances of the European Union are conducted; to what extent they have been legalised; to what extent they are considered valid by our laws; or to what extent we are bound by them. I hope that that does not include members of the Government. That comes against a background of accounting irresponsibility in the European Union, to which reference has been made many times not only in the press but by Members of this House.

As one who is certainly not an expert on Zimbabwe, I venture to suggest that the Government insist on dealing with their part of the matter—that part of the matter connected with British interests that they control. They must ensure that steps are not imposed on them by the European Union. I humbly submit that we are in no way accountable to the European Union or the Commission for actions taken in connection with the present situation.

Lord Dholakia

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for raising these matters. I shall comment on a few aspects of the concerns that he raised.

The second Motion seeks to extend the number of people included in the order before us. No one doubts for a moment that those people, and many others, bear responsibility for serious violations of human rights and freedom of opinion in Zimbabwe. I press the Minister to ensure that the Government keep up the pressure, as they have done for some time, by making sure that the economic, humanitarian and legal situation in Zimbabwe is not undermined by the action that they take in bringing European countries along with them. Nobody doubts that there has been a breakdown of the rule of law or that there have been human rights abuses, but I plead with the Minister that, although unilateral action on our part may seem attractive, it is no substitute for joint action with others in the European Union. That will have the maximum impact in allowing us to achieve our objectives.

The Minister should consider carefully the names mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. We should ensure that others in the European Union take note of what he said, in proposing those names. Finally, what about the United Nations? Would it be possible to take any international action with the United Nations at the centre? I look forward to the Minister's reply on that.

We should send an unequivocal message from your Lordships' House that we did not accept white racism before independence and that, equally, we are not prepared to accept black racism, supplemented by oppressive action by Mugabe against his own people.

1.15 p.m.

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, it is reassuring to know of the action being taken today. I hope that the Government will now lose no time in acting against Oryx, which is UK-based, and against John Bredenkamp and his firms, ACS, Tremalt, Ridgepoint International and any affiliates that they may have in the UK. Oryx is reputed by the UN panel on the illegal exploitation of natural resources, to which reference has been made, to have or to have had an account in Hambros Bank in London. Since the original European Commission regulations were made and the common position agreed in July, the House would be glad to know whether a report could be made on action taken to freeze assets and obstruct money laundering. On 8th October, when I asked about Oryx, the Minister said: we will continue to examine ways in which we may seize the assets of those who are on the banned list".—[Official Report, 8/10/02; col. 220.] We would like to know what, if anything, has happened, if it can be said publicly.

The Government continue to allow President Mugabe to impose a veto on any British action, other than discreet private pressure, to defend democracy for the people of Zimbabwe—if only the right to free reporting—on the grounds of our wicked colonial past. The African states continue to say that what is happening is an African affair that should be solved by Africans. Other countries of the Commonwealth, which has every right to act and insist on the upholding of the Harare Declaration, continue tacitly to accept Mugabe's right to murder his people, conduct ethnic cleansing in Matabelelandnot—for the first time— and to destroy a flourishing country. The Commonwealth troika, alas, has been defied and has, effectively, been powerless so far.

I suggest that there are two cards that we ought now to play. We are also members of the UN, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, and we have a strong tradition of human rights. What are the Government doing to disseminate immediately the recent report of the UN panel to which reference has been made? That report is about the Democratic Republic of Congo and was made at the order of the Security Council. When I suggest dissemination, I do not mean that it should be sent to the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. It should be sent to every member of the Commonwealth, with a covering note pointing out what the Zimbabwe Government, through their armed forces, have done to another, non-Commonwealth African country and highlighting the disgraceful plundering conducted by the Zimbabwe government organ, OSLEG.

I hope that all the individuals and firms who are, as my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford said, listed in the annexes to that report will be included—if they are not already included—in the EU list for action, either to prevent them from travelling or to freeze their assets. Unfortunately, as several Commonwealth countries are listed as being involved, this cannot be brushed aside as a domestic squabble between Britain and Zimbabwe. We must use the report and not let it pass into the limbo into which all too many of such UN documents pass. In July, the Council of the EU spoke of responding to the UN humanitarian appeal; I hope that it will work equally actively with the UN to follow up the report.

I spoke of human rights. I hope that the Government will also take steps to publicise and send to every Commonwealth member a copy of the Amnesty International report of 22nd October, entitled Democratic Republic of Congo: Making a killing. It records the killing of Congolese miners in Mbuji-Mayi, the diamond mine ceded to Zimbabwe and exploited by Oryx and OSLEG—the beautifully named Operation Sovereign Legitimacy—and by the Zimbabwe forces. Perhaps, their political and military masters should be reminded that they could qualify for trial for war crimes.

Other noble Lords will. I am sure, speak about the monstrous ethnic cleansing that is going on in Matabeleland, not for the first time. A document exists—and has been publicised—that purports to be a secret plan for genocide; that is to say, the total destruction of the Matabele by the Shona Many thousands were massacred—with no word said by the world—by Mugabe's regime, not long after he came to power, by the North Korean-trained 5th Brigade, under Perence Shiri. Shiri is now head of the Zimbabwe air force and the owner of a large farm, from which, earlier this year, he evicted the family settled there under the land policy.

There is, alas, no need for a secret plan. Matabeleland has been systematically starved and oppressed for years. Now, however, there is open ethnic cleansing and open use of the weapon of starvation, as well as simple violence, murder and intimidation. There is, incidentally, an interesting section of the document that refers—with what truth I do not know—to a more sophisticated long-term Shona takeover of the banks. It attributes some of the extensive seizures of large properties and farms to Shona owners, thanks to the banks and, as the document says laconically, to the fast-track A2 resettlement programme, which was supposed to resettle families from the reserves.

The Government cannot have a policy on Africa that ignores not only what Zimbabwe does to other African countries—Malawi and Zambia would not he starving, but for Mugabe's deliberate destruction of wheat and maize crops—but what it does to its own citizens. We should make it clear to the Commonwealth that its members must stand by their principles, as they were ready to do over Fiji and Pakistan, and insist on a major visit by observers who will see what must be done to restore a country now utterly destroyed. If they do not, we cannot take them seriously. They have tried the polite way, and they have been defied by a dictator. Now, they must stand up for the people, on whom he daily inflicts murder.

What pressure has the Commonwealth, apart from the admirable John Howard, exerted on President Mbeki? What is Mozambique, admitted uniquely into the Commonwealth, doing to uphold the principles for which it is supposed to stand? It is time that Mozambique paid its dues. People are dying every day, and the world does not know it. The Matabele, in particular, must feel like the inmates of the concentration camps during the last war in Germany—forgotten and unacknowledged. We must use every means open to us to save them. During the war, even the Germans could not refuse entry to the Red Cross, at least to see prisoners-of-war. Why do we not promote and finance visits by the Red Cross, the UNHCR and Amnesty International to Zimbabwe? They will be turned back, but we should send some more the next day. Each day, we should give the event full, world publicity.

It is difficult to understand how we failed to convince the African and Asian members of the Commonwealth that, in defending tacitly Mugabe's right to murder his people and destroy his country, they are wholly betraying the Zimbabwean people, a large number of whom are black. Millions of them will soon die, and those countries are looking the other way. They enjoy freedom, law and order, so what right have they to fail to defend the right of Zimbabweans to the same things? If they need an African view of the ineffable Mugabe, let them remember President Mandela's denunciation of him as a tyrant four years ago.

Lord Astor of Hever

My Lords, I fully endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Howell said about these two statutory instruments. With regard to the first instrument on the Order Paper—the freezing of funds—surely our list of restricted persons should, at the very least, be congruent with the more extensive United States list. In view of the globalised nature of the business world, can the Minister explain why we have not yet managed to achieve such congruence?

I believe that we should take a leaf out of the United States' book and extend the restrictions to cover spouses and dependent children. The point of these targeted sanctions ought to be to make life very uncomfortable for the individuals listed. Apparently, four Zimbabwean Cabinet Ministers have children at school in the United Kingdom. That education is being paid for by criminally-acquired wealth, while whole rafts of children back in Zimbabwe are too weak from hunger to attend school—if, indeed, they are fortunate enough to have a still-functioning school in their area.

What we are facing in Zimbabwe is catastrophe. There is no time for gentle persuasion, or pressure, through the usual channels. What we have is a cynically engineered human catastrophe. This is engineered by the Zanu PF élite to cling to the power from which they corruptly derive their wealth, but abetted and sustained for their own purposes by an international criminal élite. They need the corrupt regime to launder their drugs money and to cover the tracks of their lucrative arms dealing.

If the Government are serious about doing something that will materially alter the lives and conditions of the millions of Zimbabweans living on the brink of starvation, they must work to break the business network that supports Mugabe. We must now go for the other individuals who have well-documented connections with the web of business interests that lie at the heart of the Zanu PF regime. I ask the Government to lay before the House a revised instrument, an up-to-date instrument, that takes full account of recent developments, such as the report and recommendations of the UN Panel of Experts, mentioned by my noble friend.

With regard to the other statutory instrument, I see little point in bringing before the House an order that will prevent the lower echelons of the Zimbabwean Government from travelling to the smaller, outlying territories of the British Crown—to Pitcairn or St Helena—when key individuals—those who engineer shady deals to provide the all-important financial lifelines to the regime—are free to come and go at will and use their assets to broker more international deals.

The names of Wing Commander Mike Moyo, Brigadier General Sibusio Moyo, and Thamer al-Shanfari are specifically named in the list of individuals against whom the UN Panel of Experts asks us to impose a travel ban and financial restrictions. Brigadier General Sibusio Moyo is Director-General of COSLEG, the body that coordinates the Zimbabwean regime's plundering of resources in the Congo. He is also a member of the forum that meets monthly to co-ordinate the military and commercial strategy, and divide up the commercial spoils between Zanu PF and its business partners. Thamer al-Shanfari is the Chief Executive of Oryx Natural Resources, a company whose intimate involvement with funding the regime has long been known. That involvement has now been officially confirmed, beyond any doubt, thanks to the painstaking work of the UN Panel of Experts.

This statutory instrument seems almost irrelevant when a coach and horses is being driven through the EU targeted sanctions by moving the SADC-EU summit from Copenhagen to Maputo. Apparently, this Government raised no objection. I hope that the Minister will explain the rationale of the Government's policy in acquiescing to this move. Further, as my noble friend Lord Howell asked, perhaps she will also say whether British Ministers will attend.

I trust that the noble Baroness will not tell the House that she is working through the NePAD nations to bring about change in Zimbabwe. President Mbeki of South Africa stated on Wednesday that political and human rights matters would not be subject to peer review as part of the NePAD process. I ask the Minister also to withdraw this statutory instrument and lay before the House an amended order, as suggested by my noble friend.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Howell of Guildford, that what we need is a global approach to the matter. It is apparent that the EU targeted sanctions are not working; indeed, everyone knows that. We have three components: the sale, supply, export and shipment of equipment, which we are not discussing this afternoon; the freezing of funds; and the restrictions on travel. I should like to take up the reference made by the noble Lord to the import of armoured Mercedes-Benz limousines by the regime for the exclusive use of Mugabe and his cronies.

When we are supposed to have a ban on military equipment of all kinds, it seems extraordinary that such goods could slip through the net. As the noble Baroness has informed me in correspondence, they are not covered by the list that is being adopted by the European Union. If that is the case, the list should be changed, as I have tried to convince the noble Baroness, to include armoured limousines. I do not believe that the noble Baroness needs much convincing in that respect; it is just a question of how we persuade our European partners to extend the list to cover other goods.

As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, very few of the leading members of the regime are seriously inconvenienced by the existing measures. Even those who are actually named do not suffer any real hardship as a result of the measures that we have so far introduced: it is the wives who go on the shopping trips around Europe; and it is their children who attend expensive public schools at the expense of the people not only of Zimbabwe but also of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They can easily evade whatever restrictions are imposed by importing goods through third countries that do not go along with the restrictions that we place on both travel and trade.

I agree that we need to strengthen the EU sanctions and make them bite on as many senior figures of the regime as possible. I also agree with noble Lords who pointed out that we should co-ordinate our activities with others who are independently adopting different lists. It seems to me to be crazy that we should all do our own thing, so to speak, and "invent the wheel" from scratch, instead of getting together with the Americans, the New Zealanders, and others, and establishing a common list. It has been said that the American list consists of 200 names. I hear that the New Zealand list contains 142, while our list consists of only 72 names. The noble Baroness will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but there are disparities between the figures adopted by three different regimes. Such lists should be aligned accordingly. We should go for the maximum—the American list—which includes many people who are hangers-on and not the principal figures in the regime.

When the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meets next March to consider what to do about Zimbabwe, it will be guided not just by what we are doing now by way of these extensions but also by the objective evidence of whether Zimbabwe is violating the Hirare declaration. Therefore, as has been said—especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth—it is essential that we collect the evidence and that it should be incorporated in a definitive set of documents that the Troika can use as yardsticks for its judgment. I believe that the Commonwealth Secretariat should be charged with that task. I wrote to the secretary-general a few days ago asking him to compile a dossier for circulation to member states. I believe that much of the criminal behaviour of the Zimbabwe regime has either escaped the notice of other members of the Commonwealth or they have, for their own reasons, chosen to ignore it.

One particular piece of evidence which your Lordships should note is the Inter-Parliamentary Union report on the violations of rights of parliamentarians—a matter which should concern this House and another place. For example, Mr Justin Mutendadzamera, his wife and step-son, were severely ill treated by police who broke into their house and beat them. Mr David Mpala was kidnapped on 13th January 2002 and, after being stabbed in the abdomen, was dumped six kilometres away. People helped him to the police station and hospital, and he was put on a life support system.

Mr Fletcher Dulini-Ncube

, whose case I have mentioned before, a 61 year-old diabetic, was incarcerated for several weeks without being given appropriate medication for his disease. As a result, he almost lost the sight in one eye. There are three other cases with which I shall not weary the House, but all of them should be made available to other Commonwealth states, to our partners in the European Union, and to member states of the United Nations, so that they know what is going on. If that can be done to MPs, what are they doing to the ordinary citizens of Zimbabwe?

The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. has referred particularly to the case of Matabeleland. The Minister will know that we had some information from reliable sources there earlier this week concerning the diversion of humanitarian aid to the supporters of the ZANU PF regime, the confiscation of aid which has led the World Food Programme to suspend its operations in some parts of Matabeleland, the holding up of large quantities of aid which are waiting in South Africa to cross the border into Matabeleland because they cannot get permission, and, as a result, withdrawal from the territory of many agencies such as Oxfam, Save the Children Fund, CAFOD, and so forth.

I have a letter from the Right Reverend Pius Ncube, Archbishop of Bulawayo, who begins by saying: The biggest problem right now is that of starvation".

That is what we are confronting in Matabeleland. That is because, as he says, the Zimbabwe Government are denying import licences for humanitarian agencies, is preventing the distribution on the ground of the aid which is provided, and using violence against persons operating for humanitarian agencies. He goes into much detail that I shall not weary your Lordships with now, but if such a personage as the Archbishop is moved to write that letter, then we are facing a situation in Matabeleland which, as the noble Baroness has said, is even worse than in the rest of Zimbabwe. It almost amounts to genocide, as our representatives from Matabeleland told us when we met earlier this week.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the UN expert panel report. Here we have a particular responsibility because there are organisations and individuals who are operating from this country. She particularly referred to Oryx, a company whose machinations we have discussed several times on the floor of the House in debates on both DRC and Zimbabwe.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister particularly to paragraph 53 of the report which states that Oryx transported eight crates of Congolese francs for shipment to Harare on 13th March 2000 in an aircraft belonging to Mr John Bredenkamp. His name will be familiar to the Minister as a person who lives in Sunningdale, Berkshire and whose address has been given to the Foreign Office on previous occasions. Yet he apparently continues his activities with impunity. The Minister also mentioned the account of Oryx in Hambros Bank, London. That was used to transport parcels of United States dollars, which had been withdrawn from the bank, and sent to Kinshasa, without declaring them to the Congolese authorities. At Kinshasa that money was changed into Congolese francs and transported to Harare and the eastern DRC.

On another occasion Oryx employees said that they were asked to pay Mr Emerson Mnangagwa a commission on those transactions, which contravened Zimbabwe law. Mr Mnangagwa is the speaker of the Zimbabwe Parliament. He is the same gentleman who refuses to answer questions about the torture and ill treatment of MPs when they were addressed to him by the Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He has ignored all the letters. This is also the gentleman who is illegally diverting the resources of the DRC.

Another aspect of Mr Bredenkamp's activities is that he is said to be the agent for British Aerospace in Zimbabwe. The expert panel report accuses him of having facilitated or organised the sale of 3.5 million dollars of goods to the Zimbabwe defence forces in July 2001, and to have organised the delivery of spare parts for the Hawk jets owned by the Zimbabwe Air Force early in 2002. Has Mr Bredenkamp been, or is he going to be, questioned by the police about those activities?

Of course, within Zimbabwe itself, let alone the DRC, political violence continues unabated. The political violence report of the Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum for September gives detail about the state of affairs there. I shall not weary the House with everything they say. I shall give some figures from the period 1st January 2002 to end September.

The forum said that there were 58 political murders during that period, that 1057 cases of torture occurred, and 223 abductions or kidnappings. I shall not read the rest of the figures, but that gives a picture of the state of affairs that affects ordinary people in Zimbabwe.

If European Union members are to appreciate the serious situation that exists in Zimbabwe and, hence, the need to intensify pressure on the regime through targeted sanctions, if the Commonwealth is to have the material to enable it to decide the question of Zimbabwe when that comes before it next March, and if the United Nations itself is to be left in no doubt about the impending crisis, the necessary information should be collected, analysed and published by some unimpeachable authority. I request that the Minister contact the Commonwealth Secretariat and inquire whether the Secretary General is willing to undertake this task.

Lord St John of Bletso

My Lords, I intervene briefly to give my total and undivided support to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in those two Motions. As noble Lords are aware, there is a total case of despair in Zimbabwe. Normally in countries where there are cases of natural disaster—particularly the famine in Zimbabwe—the police and army come to the help of the nation. Sadly, the police and army in Zimbabwe are mere puppets of the ZANU-PF.

Clearly, sanctions have to be targeted and it has been made clear in Europe that we would not want the more general sanctions to affect particularly the poor in Zimbabwe. I am pleased that the issue of Oryx has been raised. I hope that the Minister will give us encouragement about more decisive action to be taken against Oryx, as well as John Bredenkamp.

However, I hope that a more global approach can be taken to sanctions. I spent many years living in South Africa and, clearly, sanctions did not work. What eventually caused a great deal of concern were sporting sanctions and I want briefly to raise the fact that the cricket World Cup will be held in South Africa at the end of February and in March next year. The last five games will be in Zimbabwe. Do the Government intend to send our cricket team into Zimbabwe?

Everything has already been said most eloquently by previous speakers. However, I would like to discover from the Minister what action is being taken in order to promote a government of national unity in Zimbabwe. I understand that behind the scenes the Government are doing a great deal together with Thabo Mbeki and SADC in order to promote this. While we all hope that sanctions will bite, I hope that diplomatic actions will continue to force change in a country ravaged by famine and corruption.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I rise briefly to add my voice to the chorus of outrage that has been expressed in this Chamber. I am most grateful to my noble friend for shining the spotlight again on Zimbabwe. One of the dangers is that these events develop when there are even greater and more anxious developments in the Middle East. That tends to drive Zimbabwe off the front pages of our newspapers.

I am largely a novice in the matter of Zimbabwe, but the debate has revealed to me that we have an apparent system of sanctions which when examined begins to look like a system of tokenism. If one has an incomplete list of people who are proscribed in some way, it shows that one is not serious about what one is doing.

By way of Question for Written Answer, I earlier asked the noble Baroness about the effectiveness of the travel ban. She gave an able exposition of exemptions which are necessary for the management of international organisations. People are given tickets to come to that and then go home. I wonder whether that should persist, because they go home triumphantly smiling, saying, "I have beaten the ban".

Another aspect of sanctions which worries me is the economic one, not simply because of the amazing revelation by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, of crate-loads of money being flown out of this country with, it would appear, necessarily the knowledge of the authorities—I imagine the Customs and the Foreign Office—and yet it continues. Even if the system were more effective in the terms in which it is drawn up, I wonder whether it would work. I am sorry that I have not given the Minister notice of my question, but I believe that she may have an estimate of the number of Zimbabwean citizens who are already resident in this country and sending money home weekly. I understand from a Zimbabwean friend that that is playing a significant part in maintaining a fairly healthy economy in Harare and its immediate surroundings. There appear to be bits of the economy in Zimbabwe which even if we had an effective system of sanctions—and clearly we do not—would not be effective.

Part of the sanctions is the freezing of the assets of named individuals, which has been referred to already. The figure I have from the Minister's latest answer to me is £123,000. But £3.000 more than £120,000 is not real money when it is divided among so many people and it is totally insignificant when one looks at a national economy.

What am I doing except wailing in despair? First, I want to say something in solidarity with the beleaguered Archbishop whose cry should be heard not only by this Parliament but by our Churches and to which I hope there will be a response by our Churches. Secondly, I want to differ marginally from my noble friend about the move from Copenhagen to Maputo. I do not believe that anything we say or do cuts much ice with Mr Mugabe or his cronies. They are affected by the words and deeds of their neighbours and fellow Africans. SADC, the organisation which was to have met in Copenhagen, recently demoted Mr Mugabe from deputy chairman and thus denied him the prospect of glorious publicity as chairman next year. That must be humiliating. If the meeting were in Copenhagen, Mr Mugabe would not be able to attend. He can attend in Maputo and there he can learn of the developing opinion of him by his fellow Africans. I hope that he learns a lot.

1.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos)

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, for his opening remarks; in particular his recognition of the work in which we have been engaged in terms of framing our policy on Zimbabwe. Noble Lords will be aware that the European Union extended the EU-wide asset freeze and travel ban on Zimbabwe. The total number of individuals subject to target exemptions is now 79.

In the discussions we have had in this House, I and noble Lords have made it clear that what we require is a multilateral not a unilateral approach. I agree with noble Lords that it would make sense to try to ensure that the lists across countries are consistent. We are in touch with our partners, including the United States and New Zealand. Noble Lords will know that the United States does not have an assets freeze, so there are differences between us with respect to the nature of the travel ban and the number of individuals on it, and with respect to the asset freeze. However, we will continue to work with out international partners because we all want to see the same things. We all want to see the restoration of the rule of law; democratic accountability; sound economics; and basic human rights in Zimbabwe. I know that all noble Lords share those concerns.

Many noble Lords asked about the assets and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked in particular what additional assets would be caught by the extension. With respect to the funds so far frozen, a total of 28 accounts containing funds totalling £513,000 have been frozen in the United Kingdom and Crown dependencies since the introduction of the sanctions.

I agree that the process is slow, but it requires painstaking research. The money is moved around frequently and, from other areas of money laundering where money is being moved not only from one country to another but from different jurisdictions, we know that the matter requires a great deal of research. It also requires co-operation between countries. It is slow, but we have made some progress.

There have also been a number of questions about the travel ban. The noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever, Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Elton, pushed on this matter. It is only where international treaties legally oblige EU member states to let banned individuals in that they have been allowed to do so. There have been recent examples—one in Belgium and one in the United States in the past two weeks —where individuals have not been allowed in.

We will of course keep the list under review. I share many of the concerns raised, but I repeat that we act most effectively when we act together with our partners. That means that we have to persuade our partners that the kind of action that is being proposed is the right action.

I now want to comment on the two orders before the House before turning to the other matters which have been raised. The Zimbabwe (Freezing of Funds, other Financial Assets or Economic Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 puts penalties in place with regard to the EU asset freeze. Without that regulation, we will not be able to prosecute breaches of the asset freeze in respect of the additional names agreed by the EU.

The Overseas Territories (Zimbabwe) (Restrictive Measures) (Amendment) Order 2002 implements the sanctions in respect of the additional names agreed by the EU on the overseas territories. It is important that the sanctions are implemented consistently and it would not be sensible for this order to go beyond the EU common position. Both these instruments are vital to ensuring that sanctions are effective.

A number of noble Lords referred to the issue of designating additional names, a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. I shall consider those additional names and discuss their addition to the EU designated list with our EU partners. As I said, it would not be effective to take unilateral action. Acting in concert with our EU partners is vital to ensuring that maximum pressure is applied to the Zimbabwe regime. We keep the list under constant review.

As to the three individuals named and featured in the recent UN expert panel report on the exploitation of resources and other forms of wealth in the DRC, I agree that the way in which resource exploitation has fuelled conflict in the DRC is deplorable. We have given our full support to the work of the panel. The report makes a number of recommendations which we shall have to study with fellow UN Security Council members. We shall consider what further action is appropriate once the Security Council has studied the report. Indeed, there may be a number of other, more significant, names mentioned in the report which we shall need to look at.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, surely we do not have to wait for the Security Council to meet in cases where criminal activities are alleged. That applies particularly to Mr. Bredenkamp.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, the allegations have to be investigated. I am not saying that we have to wait for the Security Council to meet to take action. Given that all noble Lords agree that multilateral action is better than unilateral action, it is important that the Security Council meets to consider the report and for there to be joint UN action in respect of the recommendations made in it. We are already engaged in discussions with our UN colleagues on this issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and other noble Lords referred to the question of adding spouses and dependent children to the list. Again this has not been ruled out entirely. However, we need to consider the matter with our EU partners. It has been discussed and we shall continue to discuss it. If there is a change in what is recommended to the European Union, I shall bring that change to the attention of the House. It is right to recognise that we have focused on the key decision makers in the Zimbabwe regime, and we shall continue to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked me about the United Nations. We and others supported a resolution on Zimbabwe to the UN Commission on Human Rights. We lost that resolution because of a blocking resolution by the African group at Geneva. As noble Lords know, the UN Secretary-General has been studying these issues with respect to Zimbabwe through the world food programme and UNDP. He has spoken directly to Mugabe and has issued statements of concern.

I should remind noble Lords that the UN Security Council's role is concerned with international peace and security. Any UN Security Council role in Zimbabwe will require backing from the region, in particular from the Southern African Development Community, which, in the light of what we have seen, is unlikely to be forthcoming at present. We are very conscious of this issue and are continuing to discuss it with our partners. We need a broader-based support than currently exists if we are to get UN agreement.

This fits in with the point made by noble Lords that we need a greater global consensus on these matters, and we shall continue to work and press for that. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred to the frustration that he believes I feel. It is a difficult process—it is painstaking—but we shall not give up.

As regards its broader recommendations, the DRC panel report does not call for sanctions against the 12 companies with headquarters in the United Kingdom. They are deemed to be in breach of voluntary OECD guidelines. We shall of course follow this up and seek more information from the panel about the precise nature of the alleged violations in order to take the matter further.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park, suggested sending the report to Commonwealth and other countries. It is a very good idea and one which I shall take up. We have put together a number of different short information reports about what is happening in Zimbabwe, which we have sent to a number of countries. Information is often muddled and the UK position in regard to these issues is often misrepresented, and it is very important that we do all that we can to communicate properly and to get the correct information out there. I shall certainly take up the noble Baroness's suggestion.

I was asked about paying compensation direct to dispossessed farmers. I have made it clear before in the House that any financial support for land reform in Zimbabwe would be provided as part of our international development programme—and that is to reduce poverty. It would not be specifically to compensate farmers.

We need to think carefully about this. This House and the Government do not agree with the fast-track land reform programme put in place by the Mugabe regime, but if we were to go down the road of compensating farmers for that fast-track process we would be letting the Mugabe regime off the hook.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Park, who has raised the issue with me before, and the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, referred to Oryx. That organisation has an office here but it is not UK based, which slightly complicates the situation. We need to investigate the allegations that have been made and we are in the process of doing so. We have to do so very carefully, with the UN, and then we shall think about the next steps to take. I shall be happy to keep noble Lords informed of any progress, but I remind them that these processes can take quite a long time.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked about the EU-SADC meeting, as did other noble Lords. It is important to remember several things. Zimbabwe is facing a humanitarian crisis—the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, called it a humanitarian catastrophe. There are 14 million people in southern Africa facing starvation, half of whom are from Zimbabwe. We need to make clear to SADC the implications of the situation in Zimbabwe in terms of what is happening in their own countries. I have been doing this over a number of months. When I was in New York in September for the UN General Assembly meeting, I had a number of bilateral discussions with colleagues from African countries which focused on the economic and humanitarian impact of the situation in Zimbabwe on the region as a whole. We have to get this message across. It is important that the European Union should engage in a dialogue with SADC, not only on the humanitarian issues but more generally on issues of poverty, human rights and governance.

I shall he representing the United Kingdom at the EU-SADC meeting next week. I can assure noble Lords that I shall be extremely tough in the messages that I give to SADC. It is almost inconceivable that 40 million people can be facing starvation and that is not being recognised by government in the region. It is right that the EU should engage in that discussion through the EU-SADC process. This is a matter that governments in the region have to take seriously. The United Kingdom Government are giving substantial amounts of humanitarian assistance not just to Zimbabwe but to the region. This is about the responsibilities that governments themselves need to take for what is happening in their countries.

I do not agree that part of our policy has been to say: leave it up to Africa. That has never been our position. We have said that this issue should concern the whole international community. That includes Zimbabwe's partners—including governments on the continent. It includes the European Union, the Commonwealth and other countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talked about the need for a global approach. That is very much what our strategy has been about. I do not agree that the Government have vetoed British action in specific respects because we are concerned about allegations regarding our colonial past. We have been clear about the limitations of what we have said because of that colonial history. It does not mean that we have not made our position clear, but it is heard and read in a particular way because of our historical relationship with Zimbabwe.

The issue of the Commonwealth was raised by many noble Lords. I have had numerous discussions with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. It is important that the Commonwealth obtain data. Noble Lords will know that Mugabe has refused to meet the Commonwealth Secretary-General. It is important that the Commonwealth gathers what data it can, but it is difficult for it to gather data within the country.

My noble friend Lord Bruce asked to what extent our responsibility to the European Union stops the United Kingdom considering the steps that we should be taking. This is a matter of us acting together. It gives us greater weight. I can assure my noble friend that working in partnership with our EU colleagues has not prevented us from taking specific action. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we need to keep up the pressure, and I agree with him about the unequivocal message that we should send; namely, that as a government, or as the second Chamber in the British Parliament, we are not prepared to accept racism.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, talked about working with New Zealand and the United States. I have addressed that point. The meeting in March will not be a CMAG meeting; it will be a meeting of the troika that was mandated by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, asked about the World Cup. This is a matter for the ECB and for the cricketing authorities. The United Kingdom Government do not send our cricket team to Zimbabwe. As to the point about promoting a government of national unity, we have been in constant contact with our SADC partners on this. We were strongly in favour of the initiative taken by Nigeria and South Africa in this respect. I am aware that discussions continue behind the scenes, but very little has changed in regard to the matter.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the pressure needs to be kept up across a number of different fronts, including through the Churches. It is the people of Zimbabwe who deserve our support. They want to know that they have that support and we need to make it clear through whatever channels we can.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but useful debate. From all speakers there has emerged the extremely clear message that more must be done—that the situation is not satisfactory. I thank the Minister for her comments and for her undertaking to look at additional names. That is welcome.

The Minister's main theme is that we have to act in concert. Our reply is that in a concert someone has to conduct the orchestra and someone has to play the leading instrument. We are looking for much more vigour in those tasks in order to put pressure on the Mugabe regime. The Minister spoke about not letting Mugabe off the hook. We fear that he is not on the hook at the moment. That is the trouble. More can be done.

We have made our views very clear. I am glad that they will be taken into account. We believe that better orders could have gone forward than the one that we are praying against and the one that we seek to amend. However, in the absence of such, we should possibly let these orders go forward. Therefore, repeating my strong hope that the Government will keep very much in mind and will carry forward all the points made in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at eight minutes past two o'clock.