Rwanda and the Great Lakes

HC Deb 05 March 2003 vol 400 cc282-303WH

2 pm

Norman Lamb (North Norfolk)

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to highlight what is happening in one part of the Great Lakes region, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I want to focus on the report by the UN panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth in that country. However, I am pleased that the debate also gives an opportunity for others, with a much longer track record than mine, to raise important issues relating to the region. I know that other hon. Members applied for an Adjournment debate on the same subject.

The all-party group on the Great Lakes region and genocide prevention produced its own report on the exploitation of mineral resources in the DRC. I pay tribute in particular to the work of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who chairs the group, in pointing out the challenges that the region presents for the international community.

The DRC has been ravaged by conflict since 1998. It is pretty clear that the cause of the continuing conflict has in large part been the desire of countries or groups to get their hands on the country's rich natural resources—gold, diamonds and other rare metals such as coltan, in particular, which is used in mobile phones and is probably present in this Chamber. Six foreign armies have been involved in this war-ravaged country: Uganda, Rwanda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Burundi.

Back at the start of the events in question, in 1998, there were already 50,000 troops from various countries engaged in the conflict. Child soldiers have been used on all sides. In February a BBC news report suggested that the DRC was "awash" with child soldiers. A report on the north-eastern Ituri region cited aid workers as saying that children formed the bulk of the troops in some armed groups.

The conflict has left between 2 million and 3.5 million people dead—that is the scale of the disaster that has afflicted the country. Disease and abuse are widespread. There have been recent reports of cannibalism practised by the Movement for the Liberation of Congo. A report in January suggested that there was a UN investigation into claims that rebel groups send pygmies out on hunting expeditions and, if they come back with nothing, kill them and feed on their sexual organs. There are also reports that pygmies are forced to eat the remains of their colleagues who have been killed.

A peace process was begun in 1999 and stepped up in 2002. I do not underestimate the progress that has been made in bringing peace to the country, but it is a long way from completion, with trouble continuing throughout the DRC. In 2002 peace accords were signed in Pretoria by the DRC and the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda. However, atrocities have continued. In the past few days there have been reports of a massacre near the Ugandan border, committed by pro-Government forces, including members of the Ugandan army. Estimates of civilian deaths in that massacre range from 250 to 467. Some 150,000 people have been displaced by the latest violence.

The Guardian has reported that both Rwanda and Uganda have denied breaking the peace accords. However, many believe that both countries are still intent on exploiting diamonds, gold and other minerals in the DRC.Africa Confidential, a London-based newsletter, has accused them both of delivering fresh arms to proxy militias, in defiance of the South Africa-brokered peace accords of last year.

The UN panel of experts was first established in June 2000 to consider the illegal exploitation of natural resources, and to consider in particular the link between that exploitation and the continuation of the conflict. Foreign armies were using the conflict as an excuse to continue exploiting resources. The first report was issued in April 2001 and concluded that illegal exploitation of mineral and forest resources was taking place "at an alarming rate." It considered two forms of exploitation: looting on a mass scale, and systematic, systemic exploitation of those resources. It identified key individual actors, including army commanders and businessmen and government structures", as the engine of this exploitation. The report also referred to the enrichment of top Ugandan military commanders and civilians—remember that we give millions of pounds in aid to Uganda. It noted the emergence of illegal networks headed by top military officers and business men, and recognised the opportunistic behaviour of some private companies and influential individuals. Its recommendations included sanctions against both countries and individuals.

On 19 December 2001, the UN Security Council requested a renewal of the expert panel's mandate for a further six months. The panel was asked to provide an update on the situation and to make further recommendations. Its final report came out in October last year. Its conclusion was that there had been a multi-billion dollar corporate theft of the country's mineral assets". The panel looked at politically and economically powerful groups involved in exploitation activities which had become "highly criminalised". It looked further at the concept of an elite network of senior military people, business men and government officials in the various foreign Governments and in the DRC Government, all acting together to continue that exploitation.

It is important to state that various parties who are named and shamed in the final report heavily dispute aspects of it. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the process, because the panel's remit came to an end when it published the report. When the Governments concerned sought further evidence to support the allegations in the report, they were told that the panel's remit had come to an end and that it was unable to respond. Thankfully, the panel's remit has been re-established through another UN resolution, but we are still waiting for further supporting evidence. That is wholly unsatisfactory, especially for people who have been wrongly named in the report, quite apart from the need to bring the illegal activity to an end.

The latest report describes the operation of criminal groups linked to the armies of the countries to which I have referred. It describes how the groups do not disband as the armies withdraw, which is why this important issue continues to be unresolved. The report describes how such groups have built up a self-financing war economy centred on mineral exploitation. As the armies withdraw, the Governments of Rwanda and Zimbabwe, as well as powerful individuals in Uganda, have adopted other strategies for maintaining the mechanisms for revenue generation, many of which involve criminal activities. The Ugandan defence forces have been training local militias to take over where they leave off, and Rwanda has engaged in similar tactics.

Senior Zimbabwean officers have enriched themselves by exploiting the DRC's mineral assets under the cover of arrangements to repay Zimbabwe for military services provided to the DRC Government. The Zimbabwe defence force has set up new companies and contractual arrangements to defend its economic interests. The report refers to the criminal activities that have been indulged in, which include theft, the embezzlement of public funds, the under-valuation of goods, smuggling, false invoicing, the non-payment of taxes, kickbacks and bribery—it is a pretty wide range.

In the Government-controlled area, the elite network that the report describes is made up specifically of Zimbabwean politicians and members of the military. The report says that the key strategist for the Zimbabwean branch of the elite network is the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament, Emmerson Mnangagwa. It also refers to Air Marshal Perence Shiri, who is a long-time ally of Mugabe and who helped to turn Harare into a significant centre for the illicit diamond trade. The report names several other Zimbabwean politicians and military people.

I want to deal now with an individual who has a base in this country and who, according to the report, has been very active in this disaster. John Bredenkamp must be a serious concern for the British Government. He denies the allegations against him, but serious questions have been asked, and it is important that progress is made with the investigation. His British business is based in Sunningdale, and he has extensive interests in the UK. His estimated personal wealth is $500 million. The report says that he is experienced in setting up clandestine companies and sanctions-busting operations and has a history of clandestine military procurement". It is alleged that he was involved in sanctions busting for Ian Smith before the end of white rule in Rhodesia and, of course, before he transferred his allegiance to the Mugabe regime. It is alleged also that he supplied arms to both sides in the Iran-Iraq war.

In March 2001,The Observer reported close links between John Bredenkamp and the Mugabe regime, and critics claimed that he was making significant sums as a supporter of that corrupt regime. There were also reports that his companies were major suppliers of arms in the DRC war and that he had taken over the management of Zimbabwe's mining concessions in the DRC to make money from the exploitation of the resources to which I referred.

It is said that Bredenkamp favours one Emmerson Mnangagwa—the Speaker of the Parliament—as a successor to Mugabe. As I have already described, Mnangagwa cropped up as a key strategist in the Zimbabwean operation in the DRC. Bredenkamp operates through various companies, including Aviation Consultancy Services. ACS represents BAE Systems and has supplied Zimbabwe's air force with BAE Systems parts. Bredenkamp claims that that stopped when sanctions were imposed on the country, but the report refers to his discussions with senior officials and says that he offered to mediate sales of British Aerospace military equipment to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It also claims that BAE Systems spare parts for the Hawk 60 aircraft were supplied to the Zimbabwe air force early in 2002, in clear breach of the sanctions. I have tabled numerous questions about that, and we still have not got to the bottom of exactly how those parts arrived in Zimbabwe. It is reported that the Zimbabwe air force has used Hawks for attack operations in the DRC.

I want to refer now to British business man Andrew Smith, who is a former Royal Engineers captain. He manages Avient Air, which supplied six attack helicopters to the Kinshasa Government and contracted to perform bombing raids over the eastern DRC between 1999 and 2000. The report also highlights transactions between Avient Air and the accused arms trafficker, Leonid Minim, an unsavoury character by all accounts.

What concerns me are the responses that I have received to my questions to Ministers about contact between Bredenkamp and Andrew Smith and UK Government officials. Given the alleged involvement of both men in profiting from the conflict in DRC, there is, understandably, serious concern about the extent of that contact. A parliamentary answer of November last year confirmed that, in the previous 12 months, two meetings and two telephone calls had taken place between John Bredenkamp and British high commission officials in Zimbabwe, but when I subsequently asked what was discussed at those meetings and who was present, I was told that the Government were not prepared to answer my questions. Why not? These seem to be perfectly legitimate points.

Concerns about the activities of the high commission in Harare were underlined by a report in the ZimbabweanFinancial Gazette in March 2000, which stated that the then British high commissioner in Harare, Peter Longworth, had dispatched a confidential memo to the Foreign Office arguing for the lifting of an embargo on arms exports to Zimbabwe. As recently as 2000, the Ministry of Defence appears to have supported arms exports to Zimbabwe, and it is alleged that another batch of spare parts for the BAE Hawk was supplied via Kenya in 2000. Was that done with the knowledge of the MOD and BAE Systems? No one knows.

I was also told in parliamentary answers that Andrew Smith has had several meetings with British diplomats in Harare during the past two years. In October 2001, he met the defence attaché. Why? What was that meeting about? The Government are not prepared to say. The previous political councillor at the British high commission in Harare apparently met Smith on several occasions. Officials met Smith at several social events in 2001 and had several telephone conversations with him during the same year. As with Bredenkamp, the Government refuse to provide information about who was present at meetings and what was discussed.

I understand that the Minister is, in a sense, a stand-in today, so if he is unable to answer my questions, I would very much appreciate it if he would undertake to ensure that they are answered by whoever is responsible for the matter at the Department for International Development. First, have the Government specifically investigated how those BAE Hawk spare parts got to the Zimbabwe defence force last year? In a written answer of November 2002, I was told that the Government were urgently seeking details from the UN and would have to investigate. What is the result? In letters to me, the chairman of BAE Systems, Sir Richard Evans, claimed that the company did not know where the spare parts came from. What is the truth of the matter? Do the Government accept that assertion?

Secondly, on the contact between UK officials and Andrew Smith, what has been revealed by the further investigations that were promised in a parliamentary answer on 5 December? Further investigations about John Bredenkamp were promised in another parliamentary answer. What have they revealed? Furthermore, given the fact that Bredenkamp has a business base in this country and Andrew Smith is a British citizen, what is the Government's assessment of their role and that of their respective companies in the massacre in the Congo?

When I asked who was present at those meetings, I was refused an answer. Can that be justified? Surely we should know who was present and what was discussed with those characters, given the allegations against them in the report. Will the Minister confirm what investigations are under way into the allegations in the report, in particular those about companies and individuals based in this country and named in the report?

Has there been a further request to the panel of experts for evidence since the new resolution was passed in January? What has happened since then? It is important that progress is made on the matter but from my perspective, there seems to be an absence of it. That may be the UN's fault; it may be the UK Government's fault, but we need to know what logjam is preventing anyone getting to the bottom of the scandal.

In a written answer dated 11 December 2002, Clare Short specifically said—

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

The Secretary of State.

Norman Lamb

I apologise. The Secretary of State said that the report contained "notable and deeply regrettable" inaccuracies. That may well be the case, as I said earlier, but what are those inaccuracies? What are the UK Government's concerns about the report? A written answer dated 4 November 2002 stated that the Government were considering a substantive response to the report's findings. When will that response be given? Will it be in the form of a statement to the House of Commons? What progress is being made? For future action, the UN report recommends, among other things, travel bans on individuals identified in the report. It also recommends freezing their assets and imposing banking restrictions. Given the extensive business connections with this country, that is an important question, and the Government must deal with it. What action are the Government taking to follow those recommendations about individuals closely connected to the UK, and what is the time scale for that action?

How do the Government respond overall to the report's recommendations, specifically in considering how the actions of the countries involved in the conflict in the Congo will affect future grants of development assistance? Will those grants be conditional upon proper conduct regarding the DRC? On 13 November 2002, the chairman of the panel of experts, Ambassador Kassem, recommended a five to six-month grace period to allow individuals and companies to change their working practices. What is the Government's assessment of the position three or four months on from that recommendation?

Again in a parliamentary answer, we were told that the behaviour in Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda would be factored into future assessments for development assistance for those countries. What does that mean? How will compliance with the recommendations be measured? Is it already taking place? Will the Government agree to the all-party parliamentary group's proposal for a regional strategy paper on the Great Lakes region and for a regional conference?

The whole matter has been an absolute scandal. When 2 million people or more are massacred in one country in four years, it is important for the international community to treat the report's recommendations with the utmost seriousness and to ensure that action is taken. We recently heard about the loss of 1 million lives in Iraq; we are talking about the loss of far more lives in Africa. There is a tendency for us in the west to put to one side the loss of life in Africa, but that is not acceptable. It must be taken extremely seriously, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

2.23 pm

Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston)

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate and on his very illuminating introductory speech. As one who had the privilege of leading the interparliamentary group to Rwanda about five months ago, I came to the debate for an update on the situation. He has helped us by referring to that very important report, which was published since the IPG's visit, and with the questions that he asked.

I am delighted that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), who were members of the delegation, are present. During the delegation's time in Rwanda, as during a debate in this Chamber initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) on 18 December 2002, we inevitably focused on the terrible issue of genocide, which was, in many ways, the reason for our visit. We saw the appalling evidence of what had taken place in 1994 and we were keen to see how the process of reconciliation was progressing and to ensure, in so far as we could influence matters, that never again would anything like that take place in Rwanda or anywhere else in the Great Lakes region. We were concerned then, as we are today, about the evidence of activity in the DRC. When we met President Kagame, he was not able to reassure us—he said that he had pulled out his troops but that if there were any suggestion of a threat to his borders, they would return.

We have no more reason for optimism today than we had then, particularly if, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, we consider the problems in Burundi as well. Three million people have perished in the DRC since 1998 and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development reminded us in the debate on 18 December, there are still people in gacaca courts who want genocide to continue in the region. We still have great worries.

It is right, given the focus on international events, and the possibility of conflict elsewhere, that these terrible issues in Africa should not disappear from our thoughts. That is one of the reasons why I am delighted that the debate is taking place today. I welcome the Minister for Europe and look forward to hearing his views. When members of our delegation met President Kagame, we discussed with him three important issues, based on the memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom and Uganda: respect for human rights, media independence and transparency. Those three issues remain at the heart of everything that we are trying to achieve in Rwanda and in the wider region.

It is right that we should put on record our questions and our concern about the achievements of the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. A lot of funding and resources have been made available, there is a great deal of good will, and the nations of the European Union have given their support to its activities, but there is not as much action or as much evidence that long-standing problems are being dealt with as many of us might wish. Many people who should have been brought to justice have not been. That cannot be acceptable, given the knowledge that we have.

We discussed with the President and others the role of the European Union. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has a great interest in that, as well as in our own contribution towards conflict solution in the region. We were told, not least by the president, that in 1994, the international community stood by, aware that genocide was taking place, and did not respond in the way that that dreadful situation invited. My hon. Friends in the delegation, as recently as five months ago, saw some of the evidence. We visited the church where 5,000 people from both tribes had perished: men, women and children—babies as well. We visited Giterama prison, which holds 7,000 or 8,000 people. That visit reinforced our belief that reconciliation, welcome though it is, requires the speeding up of the legal process. People have waited far too long to see justice done.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill spoke here in December she reminded those of us who were on the delegation of a very poignant visit to one of the gacaca courts. When eventually one of the prisoners was called forward, the proceedings were conducted in a very humane way, despite the dreadful backdrop. A woman walked out of the crowd, comporting herself with great dignity. She asked the prisoner a few questions. He responded by admitting to killing 13 people, including three of her children. None of us, shocked as we were, wanted to rush to judgment. When we saw that woman's dignity, we wanted to be sure that such things could never happen again. We supported the endeavours of the people of Rwanda to co-operate with such hearings.

We came away disturbed, but not without hope. Despite Rwanda's dreadful past, its lack of opportunities, its poor prospects for prosperity in tourism and agriculture—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was firm on that point—the country does have opportunities. Commodity prices are falling, and we saw the problems that the country has in exporting coffee and cocoa, and market conditions in the EU are not helpful.

We had then, and still have, great hopes for the development of pluralism in Rwanda. We look forward to the elections that have been promised for July this year. If they do take place—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will bring us up to date on them—I hope that all the political parties will have access to the voters; that the process will be seen as free and fair; and that when the results are declared we will see a society that is moving further towards genuine democracy. It will be able to inspire not just its own people but neighbouring countries in that vital region. It will offer them hope—

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

The right hon. Gentleman has very noble aspirations for Rwanda and the Great Lakes region, which we all share. Would he not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk and me that unless we do something about the legal and illegal—especially the illegal—exporting of arms to those countries we shall make little progress?

Mr. Clarke

The hon. Lady is right. I know that she worked tremendously hard during the delegation's visit. She raises a fundamental point. We cannot speak about the dreadful things that are happening while we continue to export arms to Indonesia, East Timor and African countries. We must ask why we are doing that. Her point is a profound one, and I am happy to end on it, because it raises a number of ongoing questions. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to contribute to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for North Norfolk.

2.34 pm

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke). He ably led the parliamentary delegation to Rwanda in October, a group that I was privileged to join, as was the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), whose skills extended to treating me when I became rather ill there. Thanks to her help, however, I did not miss much of our visit.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on initiating the debate and speaking so knowledgeably on the subject of Rwanda and the Great Lakes. I shall confine my remarks to my experience of Rwanda. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston covered much of what I wanted to say, and I shall not repeat it. However, he was right to say that although we were aware of what was going on in Rwanda, the world stood by and watched.

I understand people believing that politics is a hypocritical business. At the moment, we are rightly concentrating on what is happening in Iraq. After that, perhaps, we shall consider what is happening in North Korea, Pakistan and Iran; but we stood by and watched while 850,000 people in Rwanda were being massacred in the most horrific way.

We visited a church in Rwanda where people had taken refuge, and had literally to walk through piles of skulls and human bones. We laid flowers on massive collections of human remains, which brought home the horror of the genocide that had taken place only a few years before. Unlike a previous parliamentary delegation, we did not find out more about how those people—men, women and children—had been killed. However, it was the most horrific thing that I have ever seen, and I am sure that I shall never experience anything like it again.

It got worse, however. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we visited the court and saw what was described as justice on the grass. I happened to meet a woman who had lost her father, her husband, her sister and three children in the massacre. Her dignity was incredible. She told me that she did not want retribution. She did not want to see the young man who had just confessed to the crimes being put to death, because that would have added to the carnage. She wanted justice, but also the reconciliation to which people in Rwanda now seem committed.

The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that that reconciliation needs the help of the international community. Although people there are determined on reconciliation because of the horrors that they have experienced, the situation in Rwanda is fragile. Indeed, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk said, that fragility extends to the countries that surround Rwanda: when we arrived, we found that conflict had broken out on Rwanda's borders, albeit briefly, which was a reminder of how fragile the situation is.

The right hon. Gentleman graphically analysed what we found in Rwanda. I shall not repeat what he said, but shall finish by saying that although we concentrated on the carnage and the desperate genocide that took place there, it is too easy to forget that the country is poor and diseased, that it has no infrastructure and that it suffers under European Union trade rules. We need to address all those issues: we should not forget that side of Rwanda.

A short while ago, I had the privilege of leading a delegation to Ethiopia, which is facing drought and the possibility of starvation. However, people there can survive—they probably will—with the help of the international community. In Rwanda such help is necessary. I support the Prime Minister's stance against certain countries, but I ask the Minister to remind him that, in addition to the threat from Iraq—we must never take our eye off that ball—murders on the most massive scale have been committed elsewhere, right under our noses, in what is supposed to be a civilised age.

2.40 pm

Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon)

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. I also congratulate the Government on their engagement with and support for the region. I have attended meetings with Ministers and officials, and I have seen a shift in policy. There is now a determination not to run away from the region's problems, but to remain engaged and to help to solve the problems that still have a devastating effect on millions of lives.

There are strong relationships between the countries of the Great Lakes region. For many years the all-party group has acknowledged a major issue: the need for a regional policy that recognises those inter-relationships. Although the UK Government initially did not seem to be persuaded of the need for such a policy, I understand that they have since recognised it and that there is now a regional policy paper. However, that paper is not a public document. There is much instability in the region, and there will be uncertainty about the impact of donor countries—supporter countries—such as the UK.

Sometimes it is in the interests of one of the Great Lakes countries to claim that the UK is biased in its support for another in the region. That does not help to produce a peaceful solution to problems. A public document—a published regional strategy—could show that the UK policy is focused not only on Rwanda and Uganda, but on peace, stability and fairness throughout the region.

The hon. Member for North Norfolk concentrated on the Democratic Republic of the Congo; he spoke on the involvement of the arms trade in that country and the illegal export of natural resources. I share his concerns about those issues. On the arms trade, it is right that we should consider the big issue of weapons of mass destruction, but we must also consider the minor weapons and the huge damage that they can cause. The UK is a large producer and exporter of arms and unless we make serious attempts at defence diversification, which we could do, there will always be concern because we fuel employment in this country by our continual sale and export of arms. We have many talented people working in the arms trade in this country, and they could be using their skills in other ways. It would be a better use of taxpayers' money if the subsidies that go into arms exports and other endeavours were used to diversify.

On illegal exploitation, I would urge the Government to respond publicly to the findings of the UN panel of experts. Is British and European bilateral aid likely to be linked to the cessation of the illegal exploitation of natural resources and to the implementation of the Lusaka accords? The all-party group welcomes the UN initiative to introduce certification schemes that detail the country of origin for diamonds; it also recommends that there be similar certification schemes, if that is possible and appropriate, to address the exploitation of other precious resources in the region. I also urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that an evenhanded approach is adopted towards all the parties involved in the illegal exploitation of resources. Appropriate pressure must be brought to bear to end the suffering that has escalated, especially around the mineral-rich areas.

I hope that the Government will recognise that a sustainable peace in the DRC will not be possible without a solution to the crisis in Ituri and the Kivus. We must maintain the pressure on the Governments of the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda fully to implement the Pretoria and Lusaka accords. Primarily, those Governments must withdraw all foreign forces from DRC territory. We could guarantee the future territorial integrity of, and cease supplying the armed groups in, Ituri and the Kivus. I hope that the Government will do what they can to press all the parties that agreed to the political settlement on 17 September last year. The settlement has not yet been fully ratified to create and implement a full transitional Government in Kinshasa, which is needed as soon as possible.

The involvement of the MONUC forces is incredibly important. We must work with the United Nations to ensure that there are sufficient resources so that the forces can have a stronger mandate and an enhanced peacekeeping role. There must be protection of civilians because there is still a huge amount of rape and sexual violence in the region. I hope that the Government will make the strongest possible representations to the Governments of the DRC and Uganda to ensure swift effectiveness of the Ituri pacification commission.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) rightly pointed out the real issues in Rwanda. I ask the Government to take more action on specific issues. The Rwanda-UK memorandum of understanding needs to be redrafted to strengthen the language on human rights and conflict prevention and resolution, especially in relation to the DRC. Concerns have been raised that Rwanda is getting away with human rights abuses and conflict in the DRC, although I understand that the UK Government have not seen evidence of that. However, if it is occurring, neither the UK Government nor the Rwandan Government should have any worry about strengthening the memorandum of understanding—indeed, they should welcome it.

Clearly, if the Rwandan Government are to withdraw troops fully and permanently from the DRC and ensure that there is no supply to the rebel groups involved in the unrest in the Kivu and Ituri region, we must play our part by showing the importance of that. Things could start to move forward if Rwanda were at least pressed to answer the allegations of serious human rights abuses that have been made, such as allegations in the report by the United Nations panel of experts.

Burundi has not been mentioned much today although it is an equally important part of the great lakes region. A ceasefire was agreed in December 2002 between the Government of Burundi and CNDD-FDD, but that has not come into force. Both sides have repeatedly violated the ceasefire, although of course each side blames the other for the aggression. I hope that the Government will continue to negotiate with that country. We need to press all parties in the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and to bring those guilty of human rights abuses to justice.

Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton)

Rumours are circulating that the Burundians are considering giving an amnesty to the leader of the FNL—which is responsible for several atrocities in the region, including the murder of one of my constituents—in the hope that that would shore up the peace process. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning any such pact?

Ms Drown

Yes. There is a serious argument for bringing those people to justice. The issue must be considered from the point of view of both sides of the dispute and there is a call for people to be brought to justice.

There is a need to reintegrate the rebel and Government forces in order to give them another route in life. The British Government have had success doing that in other countries and we could use skills and talents that we have developed, although financial and political back-up will be required. The whole security sector in Burundi needs to be restructured, demobilised and reintegrated into civil society. Political and financial support is important in order to achieve the swift deployment of observers and peacekeeping troops that the UN Security Council requested in January.

The Minister knows that I have been interested in the issue of debt for many years. I am currently chair of the all-party group on highly indebted poor countries. I would be grateful for an update on the debt situation of the countries in the Great Lakes region. All of them are hoping to move to a post-conflict position, which means that they can be helped by the HIPC initiative. If we are going to assist such countries to reconstruct, and to make them economically and militarily stable, they will have to be enabled to build up their infrastructure and public services to show their populations that peace is worth working for. All of that must start before we begin to talk about millennium development goals for those countries. We should be achieving those goals in every country throughout Africa and beyond. If they are going to achieve them we need to ensure that their bilateral and multilateral debts are written off.

The region has many intractable problems, but I encourage the Government to stay engaged and to find solutions, and I am confident that they will do so. That is what the ordinary people of those countries want. The prize of peace and stability in the region is worth working for, and I am pleased to be able to play my part in pushing the Government to do their bit to help to achieve that.

2.51 pm

John Barrett (Edinburgh, West)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. I have worked closely with him in the past, and I know that he takes a strong interest in these matters. I wish to draw particular attention to the work that he has done in relation to countries in the Great Lakes region.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on making an interesting contribution, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who led the delegation to Rwanda late last year. I heard both of them speak in the debate on the genocide in Rwanda, and I was greatly moved. Although I was not a member of that delegation I feel that I was because of their moving contributions both today and in the past.

Although the eyes of the world are currently focused on events in the middle east, it is equally important to remember the problems of the rest of the world. They may not involve weapons of mass destruction or threats to international security, but the Government and all of us would do well to confront these issues, and debates such as this help very much in achieving that purpose.

As several hon. Members commented, we thoroughly debated Rwanda in December. Particular attention was paid in that debate to the aftermath of the genocide, and Rwanda's problems were fully aired, but the debate also served as an opportunity to highlight some of the progress that has been made in that country. Today, we heard about the report by the UN panel of experts on the exploitation of natural resources and the way in which, under cover of conflict, looting has taken place in which the army and the Government have been involved.

I do not wish to repeat the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, but he raised several questions that the Minister must answer. Not all the answers will necessarily be at his fingertips today, but they must be forthcoming. The behaviour of private individuals and companies leaves a lot to be desired, and we hope to hear more about that in the near future.

As I mentioned in the previous debate, Rwanda's commitment to development and the relief of poverty among its people must be accompanied by a commitment to peace with its neighbours. The agreement signed by Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo was crucial in laying the foundation for peace, but it was only ever going to work if all sides acted in accordance with the spirit of the agreement and if all aspects of it were implemented. Months later, despite good words, widespread evidence remains that that has yet to happen.

The October 2002 report of the UN panel of experts, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend, listed a series of recommendations on which I hope the Minister will comment. I was interested to read that the very first recommendation highlighted the importance of development aid for the region and stated that such assistance should be made a priority. It said: the first set of initiatives could be for quick disbursing aid for the Democratic Republic of Congo and the other great lakes countries involved in the conflict, for reconstruction and rehabilitation programmes, aimed at creating jobs, rebuilding infrastructure, and improving conditions for local populations, notably in the areas of education, health and sanitation. As in many other parts of the world, aid is the key to alleviating the poverty that often leads to hostility and warring between nations. If we can relieve that suffering, we will have come a long way in tackling conflicts such as those that have plagued east-central Africa in the past.

Although we Liberal Democrats welcome the investment that the Government have made in countries such as Rwanda and the increased spending that has occurred, I make no apology for returning to that old chestnut, 0.7 per cent. of GNP, which is so often highlighted inside and outside Parliament. We have consistently argued that the Government should set a clear timetable for raising UK contributions to 0.7 per cent. of GNP, but time and again they have failed to produce a satisfactory answer. To say, as they have said to me in parliamentary answers, that Department for International Development contributions beyond 2005£06 are matters for future Parliaments is unacceptable. The Department of Transport can plan a budget 10 years ahead, so I cannot understand why DFID cannot do likewise.

Last week Paul Kagame, the President of Rwanda, issued a further appeal for international support, especially because the country is approaching the end of a transition period ahead of the presidential and parliamentary elections. As the Minister knows, a new constitution is soon to be produced that will provide the basis for the political situation that will develop after the transition period. I am keen to hear details of the support that the Government intend to provide.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk rightly placed great emphasis on problems in the DRC and the institution building that will have to take place if long-term peace and security are to become reality. What is needed is not only building in bricks and mortar, but building trust between countries and rebuilding people's lives. If the trust that has so often been lacking in the region is ever to be created, there must be transparency at all points in the process. The commission of enquiry that was set up to investigate allegations against Ugandan companies and individuals highlighted in the UN report has helped a great deal in that respect. The Government of Rwanda would do well to follow suit, and, in view of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, there may well be a case for similar action by the UK Government.

The United Nations mission has been widely credited with doing sterling work in the region, but it is clearly hampered by a lack of resources. Many of us have argued for an increased role for peacekeeping and protection of civilians, but good will must be backed up with hard cash if it is to be made into a reality.

The ongoing occupation of eastern Congo by Rwandan soldiers cannot be tolerated. I recall a story I read some time ago inThe Observer, which accused many Rwandan soldiers of working in conjunction with Hutu militiamen to stay within the DRC and exploit the resources of the country. One American diplomat stated: The Interahamwe is now a very convenient excuse for Rwanda to loot Congo. Maybe it is 20 per cent threat and 80 per cent for show. Another UN officer said that security concerns of Rwanda had become "a joke".

I conclude by reiterating the needs of the countries around the Great Lakes and stressing why at this time of international crisis we must endeavour not to take our attention away from countries in real need. Figures that I have received from the World Bank and the Minister's Department show that about 70 per cent. of the households in Rwanda are below the poverty line. Life expectancy in Burundi is little more than 40 years, and in Uganda almost two in every 10 children die before the age of five. Those countries, along with many others in Africa, are living in the stranglehold of HIV/AIDS, which was discussed at length in this morning's debate on the international AIDS crisis. Rwanda is now among the 10 most heavily affected African countries, with an estimated 13 per cent of its population now infected.

It is surely those statistics that prompted the Prime Minister at the Labour party conference to describe Africa as a scar on the conscience of the world". I look forward to hearing the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to help these African countries, at a time when our focus is elsewhere.

3 pm

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. It has provided an important opportunity to hear the thoughts of hon. Members, many of whom speak with deep knowledge and have long experience of the part of Africa under discussion.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman's important and detailed allegations. It is a pleasure to see the Minister for Europe. I accept that he will not be able to answer all our questions. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development is on important business in Cambodia, and we wish her well, as that, too, is a part of the world that we should not forget. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be so kind as to respond to some of the points that I shall be raising, as I am sure he will to those made by other hon. Members.

I have heard many people say how well the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) led the important Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation. I was pleased to hear him say that, in spite of everything, he had a message of hope for that part of Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) described graphically the personal horrors that he had witnessed, and he reminded us that the situation remains very fragile in Rwanda, a poor country that continues to suffer.

The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) asked whether UK policy was biased. I shall return to that important point, but I share her commitment to ensuring that the Government remain engaged in the part of the world under discussion. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) also made many important points.

Will the Minister respond to some intriguing questions that were answered in the other place yesterday? Several hon. Members have referred to the UN panel of experts on the DRC. Yesterday, Baroness Amos referred to Security Council resolution 1457, which extended the mandate of the UN expert panel for a further six months. She said: In the light of the panel's findings, Her Majesty's Government will consider taking appropriate action where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2003; Vol. 645, c.W A95.] Will the Minister explain what the appropriate action will be? The hon. Member for North Norfolk gave a well-rehearsed and detailed account, but not much action has followed. What is appropriate? What is action? In an important answer given in the other place yesterday, Lord Bach referred to reservists being called up to support operations in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He said: A new call-out order has been made under Section 56 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 so that reservists may continue to be called out to support operations".—[Official Report, 4 March 2003; Vol. 645, c.W A101.] What are the operations in the DRC? What is continuing to take place there with the assistance of the British military? I am delighted that the reservists are engaged there and I am sure that they are a great force for good, but I should be grateful to be updated and told exactly what British forces are doing in that part of the world.

An important aspect of illegal exploitation of natural resources is corporate social responsibility in the area. I start with allegations against British companies and nationals. As long ago as last November, according to the excellent briefing of the United Nations Association (UK), a long list of British companies were involved, but not a lot seems to have happened. It is a long time since last November and I hope that the Government will soon decide what action to take. Has DFID requested the available evidence from the UN panel of experts' report? A copy of the evidence could be placed in the Library in both Houses. What is the response to the report? Will DFID make a statement of its intentions in the light of access to the evidence?

The Government should also press Rwanda to publish a serious and comprehensive reaction to the allegations contained in the UN panel of experts' report. I hope that the Government of Rwanda will establish a commission of inquiry to investigate those allegations, similar to the successful commission established by Uganda. Have the British companies named responded and, if they have, has DFID seen copies of those responses? Again, those copies could be placed in the Library so that we can all know what is going on.

On the need for aid in Burundi, at the first donor conference in December 2000, President Mandela said: it must be possible for the people of Burundi to materially distinguish between the destructiveness of conflict and the benefits of peace. Jacob Zuma, the facilitator of the new ceasefire said: regional efforts have achieved much progress in Burundi, but a complete peace could not be achieved without the full support of the international community. The International Crisis Group said that donors should act now and release the promised dividends before faith is lost in the peace process and the situation deteriorates further.

There is a paradox in Burundi: peace will not be possible without international financial support, yet that support will not be forthcoming before peace is achieved. Will the Government release the funds pledged to Burundi? How will DFID deal with the paradox? What assessment has been made of the forthcoming change of leadership in the transitional Government in May? Many people wish to know what level of financial and political support will be provided to enable the swift deployment of observers and peacekeeping troops requested by the UN Security Council on 13 January. Will the Government put pressure on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and to bring to justice those guilty of human rights abuses?

The hon. Member for South Swindon is wholly correct about the need for an integrated regional policy. UK involvement in the region has not been equally balanced. Total UK bilateral aid to Burundi in 2001£02 was £604,000, compared with £10,262,000 to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and £27,189,000 to Rwanda. Of the £604,000 for Burundi, £515,000 was humanitarian assistance. DFID recently appointed a permanent member of staff in Burundi—a positive sign that we welcome—and the Department has also contributed £1 million to the World Bank multilateral debt trust fund. DFID is apparently planning to expand its programme in the Democratic Republic of the Congo after the establishment of a transitional Government.

I am concerned by the Secretary of State's statement that Rwanda's security depends on regional security. The International Crisis Group report said that donor intervention now could be helpful to achieving peace. Even if the balance of aid is not biased, there is a perception of bias that could cause great tensions state to state and donor to state. Several British non-governmental organisations have said that there is a distinct anti-UK feeling in the DRC because it is perceived—rightly or wrongly—that the UK is bankrolling a country that occupied a third of its territory. There are still allegations of Rwandan involvement. What are the Government doing to deal with the problems surrounding the balance of aid in the region?

It is appropriate that we consider one other issue that has caused suspicion. The Secretary of State for International Development has developed a very good relationship with the President of Rwanda, whom she called, "Such a sweetie." In her genuinely charming way, she will not hear a bad word said against him, which is typical of the right hon. Lady. However, that sometimes gives the impression that there is a special relationship, and I wonder if something should be done to put that right.

Mr. Clarke

I must admit that other special relationships give me greater cause for concern that the one between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and the President of Rwanda. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads theHansard account of the debate in the Chamber of 18 December last year, if he has not yet had the opportunity to do so. If he does so, he will acknowledge that what my right hon. Friend has achieved because of that relationship has been truly outstanding. I doubt whether anyone in our delegation disagreed with the views that have been conveyed to us confirming that.

Mr. Key

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is well worth reading that debate.

Dr. Tonge

The hon. Gentleman is very generous. I want to add that I would not describe the President of Rwanda as a sweetie, but many of us who know what he has done, what he went through and what he achieved to liberate his country believe that, on the whole, he is pretty good news.

Mr. Key

I am sure that he is, but it would be wrong of me not to reflect the concerns that some NGOs have put to me. That is all I want to say on the subject; I certainly do not want to build it up into some great tabloid experience.

Reference was made to MONUC and its work to maintain liaison between the parties and carry out various tasks. It was set up on 30 November 1999 and is hugely important. We must ensure that it has sufficient resources both to carry out its current work and to press for a stronger mandate and an enhanced role in peacekeeping and the protection of civilians. Furthermore, it should have unlimited access in its investigations into Governments' and other states' actions. I hope that the UK Government will fully support its work.

Regional peace is crucial. Several hon. Members referred to finding a solution to the crisis in Ituri and the Kivus. I hope that the Government will maintain pressure on the Governments concerned—those of the DRC and Uganda—to implement fully the Pretoria and Luanda accords, primarily to withdraw all foreign forces from DRC territory, to guarantee its future territorial integrity and to cease supplying armed groups in Ituri and the Kivus. I hope that the UK Government will make the strongest possible representations to the Governments of the DRC and Rwanda to ensure the swift effectiveness of the Ituri pacification commission. Reference was made to the memorandum of understanding between the Governments of Rwanda and the United Kingdom in the area of conflict resolution.

Before I conclude my remarks, I should briefly mention the problem of food and water faced by the Great Lakes region. Only 50 per cent. of people in rural areas have access to safe water, and almost 45 per cent. of the deaths of children under five relate to water. We would warmly welcome the Government applying pressure to deal with those problems.

We discussed HIV and AIDS at great length this morning, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West pointed out. Tearfund calls the problem of HIV/ AIDS in the Great Lakes "the second genocide." A serious issue in the region, the problem is exacerbated by rape, poor infrastructure, and lack of education and access to medicines. The Government's programme on HIV/AIDS is crucial to the area.

Child soldiers are also of concern. They are still present in all the armed groups in the DRC—in some cases, they comprise as much as 35 per cent. of the troops—and they are being sent to the front lines. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government are exerting pressure in that respect.

I end by repeating the message of hope for the region. We in this country are engaged and anxious for our Government to do more and to influence international organisations and the Governments of the countries involved. Above all, we send the people of that region the message that we are engaged. The Prime Minister has given a commitment and the rest of us in the House of Commons feel very strongly about the region. We will not forget its people, despite the other great issues of state that currently confront us.

3.15 pm

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)

I am aware that, in this interesting debate, I represent three Ministries. That shows the cross-cutting nature of our international engagement between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence. All three Ministries have been referred to, and it is important to understand the holistic nature of Britain's new international policy.

If we want to have a presence and be an effective power across the world, we must link our military abilities, development commitments and the diplomatic role of the Foreign Office. I am pleased that one of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's first duties on appointment was to go to the region with the then French Foreign Minister, Mr. Hubert Védrine. That shows the other side of joined-up foreign policy, which is that we cannot act alone.

Several hon. Members, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), referred to the delegation to the region of which they formed part. It is good that we as parliamentarians take an active and concerned interest, but other powers, in particular France, are involved, and it is vital that we co-operate as much as possible with our French partners.

If I may say so, it does not always help to indulge in some of the name calling that we have heard about some of our key European partners recently and in the past. If Europe is to have an effective policy and presence in the region, we must learn to work together, instead of reaching for the "book of scorn", to cite that excellent compendium by Matthew Parris, to make sour and unpleasant remarks. That is not the way forward.

I shall try to combine my overall remarks with answers to the specific problems raised. If there are issues that I cannot deal with, I will ask officials to write to hon. Members if they so desire. I also have to bear in mind the fact that serious and important allegations have been made, each of which will require investigation. There may be legal ramifications connected with that, so it would not be proper of me to prejudge the UN panel of experts, which, as hon. Members have noted, has been reactivated and is undertaking further inquiries. The Government will have to react to those in due course.

Dr. Tonge

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. MacShane

I would rather not, because the hon. Lady has made several interventions, and I should get on with replying to the points raised.

There has been significant progress on the peace process in the DRC over the past year, but that is not enough. The external participants in the war—Zimbabwe and Angola on the Kinshasa side and Rwanda and Uganda on the rebel side—have withdrawn from the DRC. That leaves the Ugandans in Ituri, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) referred. I shall return to that point shortly. Unfortunately, the Congolese parties have seemed unwilling or unable to take advantage of that advance to bring peace to their country. The inter-Congolese dialogue drags on even as we speak, and all hon. Members expressed disappointment about that. The British Government have taken a great interest in the peace process and continue to do so. As soon as the transitional Government are instated in Kinshasa, we will be keen to play our part in helping the Congolese rebuild and develop the DRC in the same way as we have helped the Tanzanians, Ugandans and Rwandans in their countries.

I want to touch on some of the external and internal dimensions of the peace process mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon. The Lusaka agreement in 1999 effectively brought to an end the fighting between the various Congolese armed groups and their foreign backers, but the foreign armies stayed in the DRC, so the end to fighting was an advance, but it lead to stalemate rather than peace. The subsequent Pretoria agreement between the DRC and Rwanda, which was brokered by the South Africans, was signed in July 2002 and was a major breakthrough. It offered the prospect of Rwanda withdrawing from the DRC—the withdrawal most strongly demanded by the Kinshasa Government. It also offered to address the fundamental issue at the centre of the war, which was the presence in the DRC of the Rwandan extremist groups that had perpetrated the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and which were fighting from Congo to return to Rwanda to complete the job.

The Rwandans withdrew as promised but the Government in Kinshasa have not yet fulfilled their side of the bargain. They apprehended and handed over to the international tribunal one senior genocide suspect and, as requested, proscribed and expelled the FDLR, the political arm of the Rwandan Hutu extremists. They also pushed over to the east many of the Rwandan Hutu fighters who had been part of their army so that they were able to say the fighters were beyond their control. However, they continue to support and arm them in the east.

It is in the eastern DRC that we see the volatility and violence to which hon. Members referred. The vivid descriptions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury of the church that they visited will be on the minds of everyone who has listened to today's debate or will read it inHansard. Such happenings are a source of deep concern and alarm. The abuse of human rights, whether it is brutal rape, the use of child soldiers or resource exploitation, is unacceptable, and we will continue to use our influence to demand improved respect for humanitarian rights by all parties. However, the real obstacle to progress is the failure of the Kinshasa Government to agree to the establishment of a transitional Government. That political decision must be faced. It would bring an end to most of the fighting and use of surrogates to create what is called in the jargon "facts on the ground".

The Ugandans must also now withdraw their forces fully from DRC. We should help them by pressing all parties involved in Ituri to stop fighting, and that is where our current diplomatic efforts are focused. The international community, including the United Kingdom, has been clear with all signatories to the Gbadolite agreement that the agreed terms of that and previous agreements must be respected. I call again on all Governments in the region, particularly the Kinshasa authorities, to do more to ensure the compliance of allied forces with the terms of those agreements. The UK has recently provided £1 million to the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to support efforts to co-ordinate humanitarian responses in the region, and we will continue to monitor the situation.

The fundamental goal is resolution of the conflict, which in turn will provide the necessary conditions to begin achieving the millennium development goals, such as halving poverty and boosting school enrolment for the Congolese population of some 50 million people. The key to any lasting political settlement will be to ensure achievement of power sharing within the transitional Government, followed by national elections.

Hon. Members referred to the issue of HIPC and the need to support debt relief in the region, and that remains a top priority of the Government. I am proud of the fact that we have doubled the amount of the people's money going on overseas aid, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats will stop their nonsense of endlessly demanding tax cuts. One cannot ask for massive cuts in taxation and then ask for massive increases in public expenditure.

We continue to provide substantial support to the UN operations in the Great Lakes region. We are also providing support—

Mr. Tom Clarke

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacShane

I would rather not, if my right hon. Friend will allow me to continue.

We are also providing support to civil society groups involved in grass-roots peace building and reconciliation. We have offered to play our part in enabling the establishment of a reformed national army drawing on the forces of the Kinshasa Government and the armed groups. We will also be helping in the enormous task of demobilising the tens of thousands of combatants who have taken up arms during the civil war. We have pledged £25 million over five years to the multi-donor regional demobilisation and reintegration programme in the Great Lakes.

The penalties of the region's severe instability fall most heavily on the civilian population, especially the most vulnerable. Civilians continue to die in large numbers, with mortality rates approaching five times the sub-Saharan norm in some front-line areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Only a small proportion of this "excess mortality"—I use the jargon term—is directly attributable to acts of violence. The main killers are not bullets and machetes, but diseases like malaria and malnutrition that have gained a hold and are spreading, as health services are disrupted and food production and distribution systems fail.

Access for humanitarian relief agencies is more complicated and challenging than ever, as the conflicts fragment. These can be very dangerous places to work. Relief agency staff, both expatriate and Congolese, have been attacked and killed by fighters who go unidentified and unpunished. It is estimated that only 20 per cent. of the population in Ituri in the Democratic Republic of Congo are accessible. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) gave us the most vivid and rather difficult-to-listen-to details of atrocities—one could almost use that word—that are taking place. Parts of Burundi are virtually inaccessible and yet access is vital in order properly to establish needs and to monitor assistance so as to ensure that the most needy are reached. Only a tiny proportion of the population in the area are fighters; the vast bulk are civilians caught up in a conflict not of their making, who need, value and deserve the help of the international relief agencies.

A major international relief operation is under way in the Great Lakes region to address these problems, and there are constant efforts at all levels, including at the UN Security Council, to improve humanitarian access. Significant resources have been allocated by the international community to meet humanitarian needs. In 2002, that amounted to some $270 million in humanitarian assistance from international and bilateral agencies, including DFID.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon rightly asked about the need for a regional approach. The Government support the proposal for a regional conference to consolidate the peace and development process in the DRC once the transitional Government have been established. DFID is actively considering its future development strategy in the DRC following the establishment of the trans-national Government. Next Monday, DFID will host a round table to listen to the views of DRC experts in the UK and Europe. DFID notes carefully the view that one of the outputs of the process should be a regional strategy paper for the Great Lakes region. I hope that that goes some way to addressing the important matter placed before the Chancellor by my hon. Friend.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the Government's position on the major challenges facing the Great Lakes region, and to explain what we are doing in terms of concrete assistance. It is of the utmost importance that the political groups in the region finally seize the chance for peace in the region. If they do so, I assure the House that we will play our full part in supporting its recovery. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk and to other right hon. and hon. Members who have put on record the great concern of British parliamentarians for peace and reconciliation in the region.