Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Lord Luce Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Luce]

This occasion shows that there is a growing feeling on the need to renew the strength of the Commonwealth and gives new impetus to that. The attendance at this debate is higher than at any former Commonwealth debate I have ever attended and the interest in the subject is stronger than I have ever seen. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the way in which she introduced the whole subject and the timing of the debate.

The approaching Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia in October will have, as has been referred to by many noble Lords, the report and recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group. Having seen the first draft of that report, I have every reason to believe that it will be robust and strong in its recommendations. The Heads of Government have to be robust and strong in deciding whether they will implement some of the recommendations. In addition, as has already been referred to, there is the Diamond Jubilee next year in which there will be opportunities to mark the Commonwealth and the commitment of this Government to give added strength to it, led, I am pleased to say, by the Minister.

The Commonwealth exists as an opportunity for us to take, as equal partners. It is a pragmatic, evolutionary group of nations representing a whole cross-section of the world. It is voluntary; it is not a treaty; it is not NATO; it is not the United Nations or the European Union. It looks in an informal way for practical solutions to problems, and it can add value to the work that we ourselves do bilaterally and multilaterally with other bodies. It is unique and it provides us with an opportunity which we can take if we wish.

There are two main points I want to make. First, I start on the non-governmental side, because I think that the people-to-people connection in the Commonwealth is in fact its heart; that is what it is really all about. We have a vast pattern of connections—in the various speeches we have heard today we have already seen a massive demonstration of this. It is not just the CPA, which is a very important association, but all the other connections in the field of education and so forth. There are more than 90 professional bodies, a mass of civic society bodies, and a mass of NGOs which all provide a sort of pattern. I declare an interest as president of the Royal Over-Seas League, which does educational work in three African Commonwealth countries and holds a Commonwealth music competition. I am also president of the new Commonwealth Youth Orchestra; music, of course, unites rather than divides nations. There are so many other organisations across the board, in every field, from universities, to law, to the Commonwealth Jewish Council, the Commonwealth Press Union, and so on, which demonstrate this vast pattern of links between us all.

The Commonwealth Foundation seems to be the basis upon which we can move forward. I was its chairman for five years in the 1990s. I know that the Eminent Persons Group will advocate for that foundation to be strengthened. It can act as a catalyst and facilitator of contacts within the Commonwealth on the non-government and civic society side. I think particularly of young people. I suggest that to mark the Diamond Jubilee and the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty being Head of the Commonwealth next year, the heads of government devise some kind of Commonwealth legacy which will devote itself to strengthening the Commonwealth for young people and civic society in particular. I hope a lot of thought will be given to this for next year.

The other point I wish to make regards the government-to-government side. I welcome the Eminent Persons Group’s belief that it is most important that we strengthen the governance systems of the Commonwealth and methods for dealing with conflict resolution. It is here that the Commonwealth must practise what they preach, committed to so often by heads of government. We should devise and set high standards, and should be robust with those who do not stand up to those standards—I hope that that is what will emerge. The heads of government will have to be courageous if they are going to commit themselves to that. The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth will have to be very robust in speaking up from time to time on maintaining standards within the Commonwealth.

This Government and heads of government must be sharp in defining their priorities. If we try to do too many things in the Commonwealth, we will not achieve a great deal. Remembering that 50 per cent of Commonwealth citizens are under 25, I hope that a lot of priority will be given to young people. As far as membership is concerned, I hope there will be a separate debate on the subject of the former British Somaliland—an issue raised by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, which I want to endorse. It was a great pity that the former British Somaliland was not allowed to enter the Commonwealth when it became independent in 1960. Perhaps new opportunities will be provided for us to debate this, as well as the prospects for South Sudan and other countries to join the Commonwealth. We now have this opportunity to rejuvenate the Commonwealth, and I hope the heads of government will take it in October.

Sudan: Framework Agreement

Lord Luce Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

For a start, as the right reverent Prelate surely knows, we are backing and funding to a substantial degree the African Union implementation panel, over which President Mbeki presides and into which he is putting enormous efforts. That is our expression of support for the continuing work of the panel and of the products of the panel, including the framework agreement signed on 28 June, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already referred. We hope that will stay in place and will secure the beginnings of some order, particularly in South Kordofan where a whole confused range of Arab and non-Arab forces—some allegedly belonging to the south but in the north, and some in the north but belonging to the south—are fighting each other. We are backing the Mbeki implementation panel and, through that, many African Union people think that the best solutions will come.

There is an argument, which I only put before your Lordships, that while we must support the humanitarian efforts and do everything we can to support peace, the African Union itself is anxious that it and not outside powers should solve its problems.

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, since Southern Sudan is proceeding this week towards independence—in what we all agree is a very dangerous and very precarious situation which could lead to further disasters—may I reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lord Alton that, as a sponsor of the comprehensive peace agreement and with all our responsibilities over 60 years with the Sudan, we should pull out all the stops to persuade the international community, particularly the African community, to help hold the ring in that part of the world?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord will recognise, I am sure, that we are doing so. Enormous efforts are being made on the diplomatic front, both in the UN and with the African Union and with all other parties involved. On top of that, the UK is one of the chief funders and backers of development—medium, short and long-term—in both Khartoum Sudan and Southern Sudan. We are not merely talking and making pleas for the ceasefire, of course we have to do that, but we are putting our money where our mouth is and making very substantial and solid commitments to a better future for these countries, which we hope will begin after 9 July.

Gibraltar

Lord Luce Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

We agree with Peter Caruana completely. We also take the view that, as these are British Government sovereign waters, any redesignation is for us and not for Spain.

[Lord Luce]

I declare an interest as a former Governor of Gibraltar. Does the Minister not agree that the trilateral forum, to which he referred, has made a great deal of progress in recent years in bringing, through economic co-operation, benefits to the people of Spain in the region, as well as to Gibraltarians? Does he also agree that, so long as the Spanish Government—a fellow member of NATO and the European Union—behave in this unacceptable fashion, it will not be possible to make further progress?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I would not for a moment dare to disagree with such a distinguished former Governor of Gibraltar. We seek from the Spanish authorities, who are our friends and allies in many parts of the world, an understanding that these matters can be handled by the trilateral forum of dialogue process and that these incursions—this one has a higher profile because it involved the Spanish navy, whereas normally it is the Spanish Guardia Civil which causes these incursions—add nothing to the hopes for resolution. Every time this occurs, we respond with the utmost urgency and the strongest protest that this is not the way forward.

British Overseas Territories

Lord Luce Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who knows an enormous amount about the overseas territories, has introduced this debate. After all, there are 14 overseas territories under direct British government responsibility, with a total population of about 239,000. These are important responsibilities and there ought to be regular opportunities to hold Her Majesty’s Government to account for the performance in those territories. Of course, these 14 territories are an inheritance from the former British Empire, which has long since gone, but they have, for one reason or another, decided that they do not wish to proceed to complete independence or—to put it another way; due to particular constraints that they may face—they feel that it is impossible to proceed towards independence at this stage. It is right, too, that we now describe them as British Overseas Territories. I think that it was Robin Cook, as former Foreign Secretary, who decided to drop the word “colonial”. In my view the matter has nothing to do with colonies now; there is simply a British responsibility for these territories.

I wish to make one or two general observations and then comment on three territories. On the general side, the Minister and I and many other noble Lords share a very strong belief in the value of the Commonwealth. I was glad that the noble Baroness mentioned the value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. As I think the noble Lord will know, a number of Chief Ministers consider that it would be of value to them if they had a closer link with Heads of Government in the Commonwealth by means of a forum at the Heads of Government Meeting or perhaps by holding regular meetings once a year, or every other year, with the current chairman of the Heads of Government of the Commonwealth. This ought to be looked at because there are common interests, for example between the independent Commonwealth members of the Caribbean and the overseas territories of the Caribbean. I hope that the Minister will look at that.

Over the past decade there have been one or two rather unfortunate examples of poor performance by people appointed to serve in those territories—notably by judges. One such case arose in Gibraltar, involving a chief justice, and another in the Caribbean. We need to be extremely careful how we appoint people to serve in these overseas territories. I suggest that the noble Lord consider a wider draw, including from Commonwealth countries, when appointing judges and others to fill important positions.

The principal approach, as I hope the Minister will confirm, should be to allow these territories to achieve the maximum possible level of self-governance. However, that has to be in keeping with Her Majesty's Government’s ultimate responsibility for ensuring the good governance and, if possible, the financial viability of those countries. It is interesting to note that DfID has regularly to support only Pitcairn, Montserrat and St Helena. The others—with one or two exceptions, such as the Turks and Caicos—are expected more or less to finance themselves. That should be the right approach.

One thing that has already emerged in this debate is the number of territories that rely on financial services for their viability. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, rightly referred in detail to the Turks and Caicos, but other territories such as the Cayman Islands, the BVI, Bermuda and Gibraltar, as well as the Turks and Caicos, also rely on success in their financial services in one way or another. There is therefore an onus on the British Government to ensure that we satisfy ourselves that all these territories comply with international financial sector standards on, for example, transparency, financial regulation, money-laundering and counterterrorism financing.

I should like to comment on just three territories. The first, of course, is Gibraltar. I declare an interest as a former governor of that wonderful territory, with its remarkable people, in the late 1990s. I have noticed how much things have improved there in the past decade, since I returned from that job, and I should like to highlight three strands. First, Gibraltar has negotiated a new constitution which is in keeping with today’s age. The Government of Gibraltar have more powers now, and there is a better balance between the powers of the governor and those of the Chief Minister. I very much hope that this new partnership will work effectively.

Secondly, Gibraltar now has a trilateral forum involving the British and Spanish Governments and the Chief Minister of the Government of Gibraltar. All three participate in regular discussions and I think that that is a notable improvement. For example, an agreement was reached in Cordoba on arrangements for practical co-operation between Gibraltar and the region—Algeciras and so on—in modernising the airport, sharing its services and contributing to the general development of the region as a whole. All that must be welcome.

The third issue is Gibraltar’s financial services. Tourism is important to Gibraltar as well, but financial services have contributed to steady growth in the territory, at a rate which we and many other countries in the European Union would envy. This growth is possible because Gibraltar now has a well regulated authority, an independent financial services commission, and practices that are totally in keeping with OECD standards. There is proper transparency and tax information agreements; and on 1 April—in three weeks’ time—a 10 per cent corporation tax will be introduced to deal with the problem of unfair tax competition. All that is welcome. Gibraltar should also serve as a model for the other territories in how to manage financial services. I am not sure of the extent to which there is a consist approach in this field.

It is disturbing that, over the past few months, there has been a dispute with Spain over the territorial waters around Gibraltar, arising from a particular EU directive. There have been incidents between the Royal Gibraltar Police and the Civil Guard based at Algeciras. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how this issue is progressing and whether there is any prospect of finding a resolution to it.

The final matter that I want to raise about Gibraltar is defence. At one time defence was the primary purpose of Gibraltar; but over the past two or three decades that purpose has diminished, and it now represents a much smaller proportion of our total activity in the territory. However, Gibraltar commands the entrance from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean; and in the past three or four weeks we have seen precisely the type of unforeseen circumstances that can lead to instability—on this occasion, in north Africa. Surely that reinforces the value to us, and to the West and NATO, of retaining a defence interest in Gibraltar. I therefore very much welcome the joint statement from the meeting on 3 February between the Chief Minister, Mr Caruana, and Nick Harvey, the Minister for the Armed Forces. They have confirmed the continuation of a joint operational base in Gibraltar and reinforced the value of the role of the Royal Gibraltar Regiment, which I am very proud of, and which is made up of very able and competent soldiers. It is to take on additional roles from the MoD, which is very welcome.

I wish briefly to comment on the Turks and Caicos Islands, because it is important that the Minister should tell us where we stand on this difficult issue. It is a serious matter for any Government to decide to declare direct rule. On this occasion, it occurred in August 2009, and arose principally as a result of Sir Robin Auld’s report which declared that there was systemic corruption in Turks and Caicos. Parts of the constitution have been suspended as a result. The elections proposed for this year have been postponed, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, and it would be good to know what the plans are now. I hope the Minister will also say something about DfID’s loan guarantee of £160 million over the next five years to enable Turks and Caicos to restore its fiscal surplus and eliminate its debt. I hope that this will not be a cost to the British taxpayer. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that DfID has taken the lead.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that the last issue on which I wish to touch is the British Indian Ocean Territory. This is a longstanding problem. In the late 1960s and the early 1970s, the territory’s very few inhabitants—1,500 of them—were expelled to enable the United States to set up a base in Diego Garcia. This was an abuse of human rights. No successive Government—one of whom I was a part—have succeeded in restoring justice to these people. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that this Government are trying hard to find a way forward, bearing in mind that there is currently an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, as well as serious financial constraints on the Government. It is welcome that Mr Bellingham, the Minister dealing with this issue daily, is taking a positive attitude. In his letter to the chairman of the all-party group, which specifically mentioned the marine protection area which must never be set up at the expense of the Chagossians, he said:

“Nothing has been done to implement the marine protection area and nothing that is currently contemplated would be a bar to the British Government complying with any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights or a bar to any British Government choosing in future to change the policy on resettlement”.

I welcome that very clear statement by the Minister on behalf of the Government, and I hope that it will provide an opening for a way forward. I appeal to the Government to develop a strategy involving discussions with the United States and Mauritius that could lead to compromise proposals which could be incorporated in the exchange of letters between the United States and Britain, which is subject to renewal in 2016. This is an ideal opportunity to ensure that justice is done to the Chagossians. Mauritius has a vital role as it claims sovereignty over those territories should the United Kingdom no longer need to continue with its sovereignty. Mauritius now has the support of all 52 countries of the African Union, and of a growing number of members of the Commonwealth.

It seems that the Americans will say that they need to retain Diego Garcia for the foreseeable future. If that is necessary, so be it. However, it should be possible to work out, for the outer isles that are a long way from Diego Garcia, co-management arrangements between Britain and Mauritius for the marine protection area, and to arrange for the Mauritians to work with the Chagossians on the outer islands on conservation matters to do with the marine protection area. If that can be done, and if they can be trained up and brought out from time to time to help with conservation, it would make a contribution. At the end of the day, we are entitled to look to the British Government to work for a solution, using the exchange of letters due in five years’ time as the basis for a new arrangement.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Luce Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness. She and a number of other noble Lords follow events in the Middle East very closely. I thank the Minister for the steady and wise advice that he gave to the House, based on his long experience. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who also has a wealth of experience and with whom I have worked in a number of seminars on the Middle East, for her measured speech.

I am very glad that the Foreign Secretary has taken the initiative and gone to the Middle East. It gives me an opportunity to reinforce the point that we need diplomats of high quality there. I am sure that we have some. We need diplomats, not businessmen, who will report back accurately, who are in touch with the communities in those countries and who will serve our country in that way.

I confess that I first went to the Middle East in 1947, when I was 11. I went via Cairo, when King Farouk was on the throne, to Khartoum. It is extraordinary to think that, in the 63 years that have passed, there have been only three leaders in Egypt: Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak. That also shows the importance and the strength of the army, with which it is vital that we keep in touch.

Egypt had some experience of trying democracy in the years before the Second World War, but most people in Egypt today have not had the privilege of that experience. It is worth reminding ourselves of the famous conversation between Nehru and Nasser. Nasser boasted to Nehru: “I put my extremists in prison. What do you do with yours?”. Nehru replied: “Actually, I put mine in Parliament”. Perhaps there are lessons to be learnt from that.

The events of the past few days have shown a positive signal of the growing desire of so many people of whatever background in the Middle East—poor, middle-class or professional—for better-managed economies, less corruption, more freedoms and systems of accountability. Modern technology has acted as a catalyst to help release these volcanic tensions. Incidentally, I hope that this technology will play an important role in the coming months and years in helping the people of the Middle East choose a way forward.

We know from the events of the past few days in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan and elsewhere that in the struggle to find a more acceptable form of government will be a hard and rocky path. I think it was Aristotle who said that it is a part of probability that many improbable things will happen. Unfortunately, so many countries in the Middle East do not have leaders of the quality of Mandela to help them get through the difficulties in the years ahead. I hope that some will emerge.

What should our approach be? I will share one or two reflections. First, we need to recognise our respective histories. Yes, we have recently had our own empire. I am the son of a colonial governor and was the last British administrator in east Africa. When I met President Mubarak for the first time in Ismailia, he said: “Ah, here is the last British imperialist”. I also know that our empire is well and truly over, and we must look to a different and more modest future. In a way, I thank God that we do not have to tell the rest of the world what to do; we seem to have enough problems here. However, we remain an active partner in the Middle East; we have to be so.

We must recognise that other countries in the Middle East have had great empires; I refer to the Persian empires, the Turkish Ottoman Empire, Egypt and Mesopotamia. It follows that we have to be very careful, as noble Lords have already said, not to insist that other countries adopt our form of democracy. It was a considerable surprise to me to discover that Robert Peel, in a debate in the House in 1850, said that,

“you will not advance the cause of Constitutional Government by attempting to dictate to other nations”.

I do not think that he can have forecast what happened in the years after that, but how right he was. President Obama was also right to say at the UN in September 2009:

“Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside”.

Therefore, we have to encourage evolution, not revolution. We have to encourage systems of accountability that are rooted in those countries’ traditions, history and culture. As the noble Baroness has just said, we have to watch with interest the debate about democracy versus theocracy, drawing lessons from the fact that in Indonesia and the Philippines Muslims participate in fairly straightforward democratic systems. Then, we observe the experience of Iran. I am reminded of the words of the late Lord Hailsham here; if you try to create heaven on earth, you will end up creating hell on earth.

In contrast to Iran, we have the lessons of Turkey and the inspiration of Ataturk in the 1920s. That has led to a country that today is secular but Islamic. It is, I think, an example to the rest of the Middle East, and I hope that it will adopt a very strong role in the affairs of that region in the years ahead.

Like other noble Lords, I believe it is right to say that there is no one solution for each of these countries—they are all different. Some are republics or autocracies; others are monarchies of different kinds. Even in the Gulf, in places such as Kuwait and Bahrain where there are two Chambers, there is the evolution of some kind of constitutional monarchy. Some are not learning the lessons of Lampedusa—that, in order to remain strong, you must adjust. Therefore, real stability, which is a British interest, will come only if the aspirations of the people of the Middle East are satisfied through peaceful evolution. As the Minister said, we have to work unilaterally, like an instrument in an orchestra, with the European Union, the United States, other organisations and our friends in the Middle East. We have to engage in dialogue, where we are asked to do so, with leaders, armies, civic society and emerging political parties, including Islamic political parties. Let us learn the lessons of Algeria, where an Islamic party was elected, Parliament was then abolished and there were 10 years of bloodshed and civil war.

I want to say a word about the overall strategic position and refer, first, to the Israeli/Palestinian issue, which remains a top priority. The failure to reach any agreement is a kind of cancer that poisons so much else, as well as poisoning the prospects of stability in the Middle East. It goes on deteriorating and is a powder keg. There is a kind of ineluctable slide downhill. We all know that the best solution for both the Israelis and the Palestinians is a two-state solution. However, the Palestinians are hopelessly divided, with pretty weak Arab support from the remainder of the Middle East. The Israeli Government of today, although not necessarily previous Israeli Governments, show no interest whatever in moving forward. In contrast, it is developing settlements, totally against international convention and law. The United States is not consistent in its vigour in pursuing peace in that area. The longer this lifetime dispute drags on, the more the prospects of stability will suffer. Abba Eban of Israel was right when he said that you make peace by talking to your enemies. Ahtisaari, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, was also right when he said:

“Peace is a question of will. All conflicts can be settled, and there are no excuses for allowing them to become eternal”.

I also want to say a word about the Gulf. Here, I should mention that it was my father who negotiated our withdrawal from the Gulf on behalf of HMG in 1971. I welcome the present Government’s approach to the Gulf. The countries in that area are our longstanding friends and they value personal friendship. It is exceedingly important that Ministers make regular visits to the area and get to know all the leaders. However, it is also important that we engage with the Gulf leaders through the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf on the big issues that affect them and us. One is Iran, that great nation of 70 million people, which we have not yet discussed very much today. We know from the evidence that many there are aspiring to a freer way of life. How do we work towards regional security? We have to talk to the Gulf leaders on that.

We also have to talk to the Gulf leaders about Yemen and the Horn of Africa. I express the hope that the Government are looking on Yemen and the Horn as a region of profound instability and that they see a need for a cohesive approach towards Yemen, the Gulf of Aden, with its piracy, and Somalia. We have important trade through the Gulf of Aden. We see piracy increasing —they have more than 700 hostages—with ransoms higher than ever. In Yemen, we see a weak Government with competing elites; we see tribes and regions increasingly autonomous; and we see three secessionist movements. We also see a deteriorating economy, with oil running out and shortages of water. We are all familiar with the scene in Somalia—an ever-weakening transitional Government and Puntland as the base for piracy. In my remaining remarks, I wish to mention the key points that I think we should follow there.

There must be a balance between our approach to helping the security of that region and our approach to helping the development of that region. If the West and the Arab neighbours simply support strengthening security, that will only help to radicalise the population and alienate some of the vast diaspora who live in this country and other parts of Europe and America. On Yemen, we need to persuade the GCC, Saudi Arabia and the group of 20 Friends of Yemen to work towards helping to develop the Yemeni economy. On Somalia, there is one ray of hope, which is that there were elections in Somaliland last June and the elected President wants to develop a free democratic part of Somalia. That country must be given every encouragement—and I am very glad that the Secretary of State for DfID has been there in the past couple of weeks—in developing its health and education, in training in public service and in facilitating the provision of skills by the diaspora from this country to Somaliland. All that will help to consolidate strength in that country.

I end by referring briefly to Sudan, where my father was the last to pull the flag down in 1956. If he were alive today, he would feel extremely sad. However, we should welcome the positive efforts of both the northern and southern Governments to get a peaceful resolution to the long-standing tragedy of the divide between north and south. I hope that we will keep our hand in in working with the African Union and the region to help to solve the other problems of Abyei and the borders, and citizenship rights and so on, and perhaps in the long term offer them the prospect that, if they satisfy certain conditions, they will be able to enter the Commonwealth.

We must remain an active partner in the Middle East but a modest one, not an imperial power.

Human Rights

Lord Luce Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, I, too, have great admiration for my noble friend Lord Alton for the way in which he most vigorously, consistently and courageously pursues human rights issues in the world. We owe him a lot for that. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollins on her excellent maiden speech and for the distinctive role that she clearly has to play in this House. We also owe gratitude to my noble friend Lord Alton for the fact that so much attention has been drawn to the Conservative Party today for its work on human rights. As a result, I have read two of its commission’s documents, which were produced this year and which are of excellent quality and make a major contribution to the debate on human rights.

I wish to make three points, of which the last is the most distinctive. First, in dealing with human rights, we need to be pragmatic. We need to use our influence in whichever ways are the most sensible for each country. How we deal with Russia, China, Burma, Zimbabwe—or indeed Sri Lanka, which we have heard about this afternoon— must vary according to our level of influence, our interests and our general relationship. We can pursue these issues bilaterally or multilaterally. As an example of the latter, I cite the Commonwealth as one of the best because we are all committed as members of it to respect for human rights, democracy, a free press and the rule of law. There is also a practical way of moving things forward through the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, which intervenes when there is evidence of serious abuses in Commonwealth countries.

Secondly, we need to be concerned about how we exert our influence on human rights. I am glad to say that this has not happened in today’s debate, but very often we still have from a lot of people, although not from this House, a rather patronising and lecturing approach towards other countries. That is something that we really must do away with once and for all. The Empire ended a long time ago, and we need a continuous dialogue with other countries about how and why we see respect for human rights as the best way to move to a more civilised way of life.

My third point is about making sure that our own house is in order when we talk about human rights in other countries. Whether we are dealing with the management of democracy or the rights of the individual, we cannot really stand up and talk to other people about these issues unless we are credible at home. I shall highlight that with one illustration only, which is the way in which we have treated one small group of people in the Indian Ocean. The Chagossians were expelled from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the late 1960s by the then Labour Government. To my mind, that was a gross injustice. While it was perfectly reasonable to set up a naval base for the United States in Diego Garcia, that should not have been at the expense of those islanders, who were dispatched to Mauritius and the Seychelles. Now, surprisingly, many of them are living nearby in Crawley. No Government since, including the one of which I was a member, have rectified this injustice.

Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

“No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”.

There have been endless court cases and judgments in the past few years on the question of the Chagossians and I will not weary the House with the details. At the moment, the Chagossians are appealing to the European Court of Human Rights for their right of return to be restored. There are many related issues. There is now a marine protection area in the Indian Ocean around the islands. I strongly support that—it is an excellent idea—but it should not be at the expense of the Chagossians playing a part and having jobs relating to those environmental issues.

Like others, I have no doubt that the Foreign Secretary is strongly committed to human rights. When he was in opposition, he called for a fair and just settlement to this issue. In September this year, in setting up the advisory body to identify human rights abuses, he said:

“we will not apply double standards … where problems have arisen that have affected the UK’s … standing we will deal with them patiently and clearly”.

My appeal to the Government is to work out—over the next four or five years, not in the immediate future—a strategy to find a solution to this. That must be done in conjunction with Mauritius, as we have agreed that Mauritius has the right to restore its sovereignty over that territory once it is no longer needed for military purposes. I am not expecting the Minister to give a response today and I very much respect the fact that the Government are trying to find a way forward. We need to look at this in a longer-term way.

The 1966 exchange of letters between Britain and the United States led to the present arrangements, which are due to be reviewed by 2014, prior to the renewal of the exchange of letters for another 20 years after 2016. This seems to be the opportunity for the British Government to work out a strategy and find a way to do justice to these people, who have been extremely badly treated. It will involve working out with the Mauritians some compromise proposals for the outer isles, which are well away from Diego Garcia and where problems of security can be overcome in discussion with the United States. In terms of the economy, we need to work out how we can deal with the resettlement of the probably not many people who want to live and work in the area. Prime Minister Ramgoolam of Mauritius told me this summer that he looks forward to working constructively with the British Government for a fair solution. I appeal to the Minister and his colleagues to look at this seriously in the lead-up to the review of the exchange of letters and to find an answer that will do justice to these people and enable us as a nation to hold our head just a little higher when we are talking with other countries about human rights.

Chagos Archipelago

Lord Luce Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Parliament is free to debate the MPA, which is a very important proposal, development and plan, at any time it wishes. The intention to go ahead with the MPA is in place. However, on the broader issues of the hearing in the European Court of Human Rights and the nature of operations in the Diego Garcia base, the Government are, as I said, looking at all aspects raised by the British Indian Ocean Territory’s problems, and I will communicate with the House when views have been reached. I cannot go further than that today.

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, I accept the concept of a marine protected zone, but does the Minister agree that it would be wholly wrong to implement this zone without doing justice to the Chagossian islanders who were gratuitously expelled from Diego Garcia and the surrounding area after 1965, whose rights of abode and access need to be restored first?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is raising two separate issues. The proposal for a marine protected area is widely supported by many people and there are very few objections to the general concept from the Mauritians or anyone else. The Chagossians’ right of abode is a broader issue. I would like to say that certain views have been reached which may or may not be different from those of the previous Government, but today I cannot because the matter is under review. I will communicate with the noble Lord and other noble Lords when we have a view on this situation, with which many Members opposite are very familiar.

Zimbabwe

Lord Luce Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord St John has tremendous experience of southern Africa, and we should be grateful to him for taking the initiative in launching this debate on Zimbabwe, taking on the mantle, as he and so many noble Lords have already said, of the late Lord Blaker and Lady Park, who were persistent in raising the problems of Zimbabwe over a long period.

My own interest in Zimbabwe goes back to the 1970s when I was a shadow spokesman in the other place, and later as Minister for Africa when the Lancaster House talks took place and independence was eventually agreed. That of course was exactly 30 years ago, but I want to talk about the future not the past. It is worth stressing that independence was 30 years ago and that the empire is long since over. Attempts to blame colonialism for the problems in Africa are long since past. Equally, we in this country no longer have any right to take a patronising attitude to our former colonies.

Of course, Zimbabwe—Rhodesia, as it was—was an anomaly in the sense that it was not part of the conventional colonial arrangements. In 1923, the British Government decided that there should be internal self rule, which eventually led to the predominance of the white population running that country, unlike in Kenya, where in the same year, it was declared that African interests should be paramount. Zimbabwe has paid a heavy price for that. Kissinger said in the 1970s that Rhodesia had power without legitimacy and Britain had legitimacy without power. A heavy price has been paid.

In today's debate it is important to assess the progress that has been made since the global peace agreement of 18 months ago and the formation of the National Unity Government. My noble friend Lord St John and other noble Lords have given their own assessment of the progress that has been made. To summarise: the economy is gradually improving, there is no longer hyperinflation, the shops are fuller of goods and produce, there is less political violence and there is some progress on governance. But at the same time, there is a very long haul indeed. If we look at life expectancy, which is at half the level of this country—it is just over 40 in Zimbabwe and just under 80 in this country—we see the dilemma and the tragedy that that country still faces.

My noble friend Lord St John was right to highlight the remaining problem of the hardliners in ZANU-PF, not just President Mugabe. The way that we—the Commonwealth but above all the National Unity Government—deal with this problem will be critical. If we are to learn from other countries such as the Soviet Union or Iraq we see that if we drive extremists into a corner it makes the situation far more difficult. We must learn that particular lesson.

I will make my remaining remarks on the issue of the Commonwealth. For my part and I am sure that of many others, I must say that I welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, with his special responsibility for the Commonwealth, and knowing of his passion and commitment to the Commonwealth. Quite apart from anything we can and should do on the humanitarian side in our bilateral arrangements, we ought to assess very carefully the role of the Commonwealth in terms of its ability to be constructive and to give encouragement to the people of Zimbabwe.

Although Zimbabwe is not at present a member of the Commonwealth, it has every opportunity, if it fulfils certain conditions, to rejoin it. I am glad that in the summit meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in November of last year, the global peace agreement on power-sharing was welcomed and the summit looked forward to conditions being created for the return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth. The next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting is in autumn next year and that could be a target for the power-sharing Government to try to fulfil a sufficient number of those conditions to enable Zimbabwe to be invited to join.

I am a former chairman of an organisation called the Commonwealth Foundation, which is the non-government side—the people side—of the Commonwealth, dealing with professional organisations, cultural bodies and civil society. I am pleased that the foundation has devised a Commonwealth special programme for Zimbabwe. It goes back to two or three years ago when the late Lord Blaker, the late Lady Park, other noble Lords and I got together with the foundation and others to see what the Commonwealth could do. I am delighted that the director of the foundation, Mark Collins, has taken a lead on this. Last July he convened a round table in Johannesburg between Commonwealth organisations and civil society in Zimbabwe. The civil society people agreed that the Commonwealth should play a positive role, particularly on constitutional reform, the rule of law, democratic governance and the role of the media.

Now we have a special programme that is part of a dialogue between the Commonwealth associations and civil society. It is a good demonstration of what the Commonwealth can do in helping countries to reconstruct. We have already heard mention of the media commission that has now been set up in Zimbabwe, which has licensed a number of new publications and is designed to strengthen independence and the freedom of the media. We have heard of the Human Rights Commission and, now, the Electoral Commission, which has been established to ensure that future elections are well managed and to minimise intimidation. Civil society is involved in that work as well.

I am delighted that the Commonwealth itself has set up a network of national election management bodies, co-ordinating the supervision and monitoring of elections in the Commonwealth. Then there is a move in hand to involve Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, another way of helping that country to move forward.

I am delighted that the Commonwealth Foundation highlighted something raised by my noble friend Lord Best: the position of the diaspora. I do not think that we should underestimate its importance. Since the Second World War, 20 million Africans have left Africa to live mainly in the western world and Commonwealth countries, and have now acquired skills in all sorts of fields. The Commonwealth Foundation would like to help the diaspora to focus their attention on education, health and agriculture. There is an important role to be played here, and I am delighted that there is now a Council for Zimbabwe of the diaspora, based in New York but covering mainly Commonwealth countries. Its job is to try to work with the 4 million Zimbabwean diaspora to see what contribution they can make to their country of origin.

From 1998 to 2000, 18,000 nurses, 100 doctors and hundreds and hundreds of academics left Zimbabwe, so there is much to be done. I am glad to say that the Council for Zimbabwe is working vigorously with Zimbabwe to help meet humanitarian, development and reconstruction needs. Zimbabwe now has a national migration management and diaspora policy. The evidence shows that the diaspora want to help shape the policy and conditions in their country of origin. Everything should be done to encourage their work. It is a real challenge for the Commonwealth, let alone for the National Unity Government in Zimbabwe, to provide the people in Zimbabwe with encouragement and hope for the future and to encourage the Zimbabwean Government to work for conditions that will enable them to return to the Commonwealth.

In addition to anything that we can do bilaterally, Britain’s most helpful role today is to be an active and equal partner with the Commonwealth and SADC in helping the people of Zimbabwe. My noble friend Lord St John referred to Mbeki’s great cry that there must be African solutions to African problems. We must give the people of Zimbabwe a chance to live a more prosperous and free life again. The potential is enormous, particularly in agriculture. They have suffered enough and deserve a better and more stable future.