International Development Committee Report (Afghanistan)

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

DFID has played an active part in the Chicago and Tokyo conferences, and we have of course made our own commitments beyond that period, so we set an example. Ironically, DFID’s ability to provide leadership might be strengthened post-2014, when we are freed from engagement in military activity, as it will become apparent that the UK Government’s overwhelming priority is to provide development support. That will help the leadership provided by DFID across the world.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that because the Committee tries to be realistic and pretty sober about the situation in Afghanistan, we sometimes receive the response that we are suggesting that nothing has been achieved? After our last visit, the front cover of our report featured a picture of some girls who would not have been in school were it not, in part, for the efforts that have been made. It is important that we focus our activity where we can have an impact. That does not mean that we should focus on areas that are easy; empowering women is not easy in Afghanistan. It is important that we do not oversell or over-claim and that we target our efforts on crucial areas where we can make an impact.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I absolutely agree, although I would add a word of caution. We visited the same school in June as we did five years ago and we were unable to visit a girls’ class, because that was thought to be inappropriate. That shows the negative changes, but at least the girls were still being taught, which is important. We also visited Bamyan, where we were told that there was a rising number of undergraduate women at the university and that fathers were actively pushing their daughters to take university education. That demonstrates that the situation is patchy, with progress in some areas and push-back in others. The job of DFID and the international community is to support the progress and to help resist the push-back, in co-operation with Afghans themselves.

In conclusion, it is important that people understand that the evidence that we have received shows that most Afghans do not want the Taliban back. They want a better Afghanistan that they have some ability to determine, and people need livelihoods and to be free from violence and extortion. Our report says that now that we have gone so far, walking away prematurely, as some people suggest, would be a betrayal of the sacrifice of our armed forces, as well as of the Afghan people. Having intervened, we have a moral and practical obligation to walk beside the ordinary people of Afghanistan, as long as we can improve their quality of life on their terms.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan]

A few Syrians—currently about 6,000—have crossed into Iraq. Those who do are predominantly Kurdish, as the right hon. Lady says. They mainly go to the north, although some go to Anbar and Baghdad. The camp at Domiz near Dahuk houses 3,500 such people.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned Ramtha on the Jordan-Syria border. In drawing attention to my entry in the register, may I tell the Minister that I have also visited and endorse what he says about the generosity of the Jordanian people? What extra assistance can be given there? Refugees fleeing Syria is a humanitarian issue, and refugees should be treated equally whether they are Syrians or other nationalities, such as Palestinian.

[Mr Duncan]

A number of Palestinian refugees are indeed among those who have been forced to flee their homes in Syria and cross into neighbouring countries. We recognise that that raises difficulties, particularly in Lebanon and Jordan, and we continue to work with country Governments, the UNHCR and UNRWA to ensure that the needs of all refugees are met. Contingency planning for greater numbers is in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I would be very interested to see the material he describes. I can tell him that numerous credible studies show no evidence of incitement or anti-Semitism in Palestinian Authority textbooks, so if he ensures that we get a copy of what he has seen, we will take the appropriate action.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Has the International Development Secretary joined the Foreign Secretary and, curiously, the Education Secretary in meeting Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman during his visit to the UK? Irrespective of whether he meets him, will the right hon. Gentleman transmit to the Israeli Foreign Minister the concerns of the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, who visited the west bank last week and said:

“I am extremely concerned about the humanitarian impact of demolitions and displacement on Palestinian families. Such actions cause great human suffering, run counter to international law and must be brought to a halt”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I have looked very carefully into this issue, not least because I know of my hon. Friend’s interest in it, and I have found no evidence in Palestinian school textbooks of what he describes. I was in Gaza just before Christmas, and I raised the specific matter then. I am sure my hon. Friend will share my pleasure in the fact that the State Department in America has set up an inquiry to examine the quality of both Israeli and Palestinian textbooks and will be reporting later this year, probably in the autumn. He and I will, no doubt, look with great interest at what the report has to say.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I was in Gaza at the weekend, as it witnessed the biggest escalation in Israeli air strikes and Palestinian rockets for three years. Although we all hope that the current truce holds, does the Secretary of State agree that the ongoing and daily madness of Israel’s blockade is illustrated by the fact that it incentivises a few to make millions from a tunnel economy and benefits armed groups, while legitimate Palestinian businesses cannot export, the UN cannot get the materials it needs to rebuild shattered schools and hospitals, and the poor are forced to rely on food handouts?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about the effects of this action in terms of the Palestinian economy, but he will know that the Government’s position is clear: we urge both sides to desist from the actions he has described.

Future of CDC

Richard Burden Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Malcolm Bruce]

Absolutely, and I obviously hope the Secretary of State can give us that assurance.

In a sense, the organisation needs to be a trailblazer for what an investment model in developing countries ought to be, and a role model not only for other DFIs, but for the well-intentioned private sector. We have concluded that there is scope for clarification at the very least and for the maximum transparency.

We were as shocked as the Secretary of State that despite the sale of Actis, the fund manager, for £373,000 and the fact that the Government were apparently entitled to 80% of the proceeds, not a penny had been paid by the time the Committee took evidence. I know that he was anxious to vent his spleen about that when he gave evidence to us. I do not know whether he will be able to give any indication today of whether the Government can sell their share and, if they do so, whether we will get a fair rate of return—after all, that will be reinvested for the benefit of poor people.

Perhaps the Committee’s most significant recommendation was that the investment model for CDC should be changed. I know that the Government have not entirely accepted our recommendations, but I think that they acknowledge the strength of their principle and the spirit. We recognise that the fund of funds model could unlock a substantial amount and that it does attract investment. Particularly if the report’s recommendations are taken on board, that could be focused in a way that gives real, sustainable, long-term benefits to poor people in poor countries.

We felt that some of the money needed to go into more direct, riskier and more pro-poor investment. That means not that it should be thrown away or invested irresponsibly, but that lower rates of return should be acceptable or that a mix of grants and loans should be applied. We suggested the name “CDC Frontier” to indicate that the body would be operating slightly more experimentally.

One point about our recommendation of having two separate businesses was that because the fund of funds has been very successful at attracting and unlocking substantial extra funding—it has provided very good leverage—we were concerned that a more risk-associated set of investments in the same fund might frighten off some investors who have contributed. I hope that the Secretary of State will reassure us and that his response shows that he has taken our concern on board. As long as the Department and the way in which CDC is established are able to reassure those people, the Committee will be content if our specific model is not adopted. I hope that the Secretary of State understands that the proposal was not a gimmick, but a genuine attempt to ensure that we had the balance of the changing nature of the business right and that we did not have a higher-risk aspect undermining the area with a proven track record.

The Committee felt that there should be some agreement on the sort of sectors within which CDC should operate, but the Government did not entirely accept that recommendation. I appreciate the reason behind the absence of the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). He is a valued member of our Committee and has real expertise in agricultural development in east Africa. He was rightly exercised by the view that most countries in which we have the greatest commitment to pro-poor development are rural, and agricultural productivity is a major cause of poverty. The Committee accepts that the world is changing. We have produced a report on urban poverty and increasing urbanisation, so we do not see development as something that happens just in remote parts of rural Africa, which is sometimes the public image. However, it is true that in both the sub-continent and Africa, a high proportion of the poorest people depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, yet the productivity of agriculture is frankly abysmal in many cases.

When the Committee recently visited east Africa, some of us spent a night in a village in the heart of rural Burundi—

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Malcolm Bruce]

I will not take any interventions on that point. There is an internal issue in the Committee.

In Burundi, we witnessed for ourselves some of the poorest of the planet’s poor people struggling. I was going to say that they were on the edge, but they were beyond the edge—they were not operating at survival levels. If it were not for the intervention of non-governmental organisations, I do not think that they would have survived. It was estimated that their per-capita income was 20p a day. Apart from very basic and poor living conditions—no electricity, one tap for 4,000 people and pit latrines, although not for everybody—we saw exhausted soil, diseased plants and minimal yields that were inadequate even for self-sufficient farming, never mind cash-cropping.

The hon. Member for Stafford, as someone who knew a little more about agriculture than other Committee members, said that it should be possible to perform a soil analysis, to work out nutritional benefits and to advise on disease-resistant plants, and possibly to increase the yield of the agricultural holdings by up to eight to 10 times. That would be a massive return, so we felt that CDC should be part of the process of tackling that problem. We would like to think that it would consider investing in improving agricultural outputs in such poor countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I endorse and congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), the Chair of the Committee, on the way in which he has introduced the report. As I am a Committee member, it would be rather surprising if I said that I disagreed with the report, so I will say that I agree with it, having participated in its compilation. In addition, my life on the Committee would not be worth living if I said anything else.

I would like to ask the Secretary of State a couple of questions. In a sense, this picks up where the right hon. Gentleman finished. He talked about the join between the Department’s private sector activities and those of CDC. I am still a bit uncertain about where that join is and how the Secretary of State sees it. When we visited India, that issue came home to me when we came across a target of 50% for how much of the Department’s budget should be spent in the private sector. I had not heard of that before. It is obviously very well known that the Government felt that more of the Department’s activities should be channelled through the private sector—I do not necessarily demur from that—but it was the first time I had heard that there was actually a target of 50%. A number of my colleagues and I found that a bit surprising because, if DFID is about doing what is right to combat poverty, the private sector should be utilised where it is appropriate, and what in some places might be called the third sector and the public sector should be utilised where that is appropriate. The objective should determine the percentage. That is not what seems to be happening here, where the percentage is in danger of determining the objective.

As we asked more questions about that, I got more confused about exactly what the policy was. When the Secretary of State winds up, will he clarify where the 50% figure comes from, rather than 40%, 30%, 60% or 80%? Why 50%? If such a target is appropriate for India, is there a 50% target for other areas where the Department is operating? If so, what is that based on? Is it based on the same criteria as for India or is it based on different criteria? If the figure is not 50% for other areas, how did he arrive at the different percentages? I am genuinely confused about how that works.

I would also like to know what the join is between that figure and the role of CDC. Certainly there was an uneasiness among some of our interlocutors in India about DFID saying that it wished to devote 50% of its activities to the private sector. That was not because the people we spoke to considered private sector investment to be unimportant. Indeed, a number of the most creative projects that we saw there could go under the heading of private sector projects, and they were often very small scale and very pro-poor. As the right hon. Member for Gordon mentioned, the people concerned were questioning whether, if this is going to be done on an industrial scale and on the basis of a particular percentage, it should be a private sector-led activity—the private sector investing—rather than something done by DFID directly.

[Anas Sarwar]

Does my hon. Friend recall the conversation that the Committee had with representatives of the Indian Government, who said that they would not see direct private investments by the Department for International Development as aid assistance? They recommended that DFID create a private sector wing, or arm, of its organisation to make those investments. In this case, it could be argued that that wing is CDC. If that 50% of funding does not go through CDC, does that not highlight the failures of CDC?

[Richard Burden]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In a sense, that is what I am getting at. I well remember that discussion. There was unease about the percentage. There was certainly a view that there was a need for vehicles specifically attuned to that, rather than simply a percentage of the aid assistance programme. Does the Secretary of State see CDC as the vehicle for delivering that percentage, or do CDC’s activities somehow sit on top of that? If he does see it as the vehicle, has he communicated that down to his officials in the field, so that they are not necessarily structuring their budgets in a way that might not be what he wants to achieve? If he does not see it as the role of CDC to take that role—back to my original question—where is the join between what the Department itself does directly and what CDC does, particularly in regard to its direct investments, rather than its role as a fund of funds?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

It is a pleasure to appear under your benign chairmanship, Mr Walker, for the first time. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who launched this debate today, and his Committee on its work not only on CDC, which has been enormously helpful to my Department, but on a range of other matters to which it brought extraordinary expertise and experience as well as energy, when considering difficult and intractable development problems. Secretaries of State do not always agree with Committees on every issue, and that is true of the International Development Committee and this Secretary of State. However, for the record, it is a pleasure to work with such an expert Committee. The Department and its Ministers draw huge strength from the way in which the Committee goes about its business, and I am extremely grateful to all its members for that.

This has been an excellent debate on many of the key issues that the Government are trying to address in connection with CDC. Let me start by emphasising the point that several hon. Members made—that CDC, given the terms of reference under which it has operated in recent years, has done an extremely good job. It has provided an excellent return to taxpayers, and it has increased substantially the funds under management, but my submission is that in development terms it is a greatly under-utilised asset, and needs to be changed.

It is fair to say that some years ago, CDC perhaps had too much development DNA in its work, and not enough financial rigour. Indeed—I hope that this does not cause Labour Members to blush—the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was minded to privatise CDC, but that did not proceed. The pendulum has now swung to the other extent, and it is a very strong, financially driven organisation that is not much different from many other organisations that operate in emerging markets. It seems to have lost some of its development DNA, and we need to put that back in the centre so that it has both rigorous financial control DNA, as well as strong development DNA. That is our intention, and I am pleased that it was strongly endorsed by the Committee in its response to our proposals.

It is worth emphasising the point that was made by the Committee’s Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, that aid is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The coalition Government have been determined to refocus the development programme so that the aid programme is fuelled by the engine of development—the private sector. Here, I turn to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who is my hon. Friend in Birmingham, where our constituencies are close together. He asked about the 50% figure for the amount that will be spent through private sector development in India, and for which other countries we were minded to adopt that policy. He also asked me to explain why I saw the private sector as a key means of development, and we had some exchanges on that when I appeared before the Select Committee.

I suspect that, although the hon. Gentleman sees intellectually that the private sector is the engine of development, he may have residual reservations, and sometimes under the bedclothes late at night he may think that it is perhaps the enemy of development rather than its engine. The truth is that if one believes that the private sector is the engine of development, one wants to bring to bear all the available skills in the private sector to try to drive development forward. Some 90% of the world’s jobs are created not by Governments but by the private sector. Wealth creation and economic growth empower societies and enable them to lift their citizens out of poverty.

[Richard Burden]

I do not know what the bedclothes are like in the north of Birmingham, but the Secretary of State is searching under the wrong bedclothes in the south of Birmingham because that was not the question I asked. I wanted him to explain the figure of 50%, as opposed to 40%, 60% or 80%. If there is a logic to that figure, what is it based on? Does it apply elsewhere, and if so, on what is that based?

[Mr Mitchell]

As I made clear to the Committee, the figure of 50% feels right in the context of India. I suspect that in many bilateral programmes over the years, there will be an increasing role for the work of the private sector as countries move down the path of lifting themselves out of poverty. In Vietnam, for example, we can see how that engine has driven the alleviation of poverty. There is no science to the figure of 50%, but it feels right in the case of India. As I said when I gave evidence to the Committee, it is not an arbitrary target but an aim.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in defending our decision to continue with an aid and development programme in India, it is important to respond to public concern. We must explain that, yes, India is roaring out of poverty, but there are more poor people in India than in the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. Seven and a half times the total population of the United Kingdom live on less than 80p a day, and it is right to walk the last mile with India on development. The aid and development programme is important, and makes up part of the rich tapestry of Britain’s relations with India that were so singularly reinvigorated by the Prime Minister’s visit last year. Those relations are important and we all—not only people in India but those in Britain as well—have a huge amount to gain from Indian prosperity. For that reason, we decided to freeze the programme, focus on work in the poorest states and redirect a significant part of the budget—up to approximately 50% by the end of the next four years—to pro-poor private sector development. That will create the jobs and prosperity that are essential for India.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend has made a good point. I believe that I met the vicar during a visit at the time of the general election, but I, or one of my fellow Ministers, would be happy to meet him and some of my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss this important matter.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State did not say in his opening remarks that Britain is winding down its aid programme in Burundi, a country in which more than 80% of the population live on less than $1.25 a day. What specific assurances can he give that other donors will take up the programmes in which Britain has been involved in so far?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Germany, Belgium and France have much larger bilateral programmes in Burundi than Britain. We are providing only 3.6% of the funding through our bilateral programme, but we have to make tough decisions about how we spend our budget. It is, after all, hard-earned taxpayers’ money, and we do not think it provides good value for money to have such a small programme with such high administrative expenses. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that through multilateral support over the next few years Britain will spend about double the sum of the old bilateral programme.

Aid Reviews

Richard Burden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

We have looked carefully at EU aid spending and while it is true that the spending through the Commission is not as good as it should be, it is nevertheless also true that the European development fund spends British taxpayers’ money quite well. Let me also make it clear to my hon. Friend that although some 17% of the funding comes from Britain, 40% of it is spent on the Commonwealth countries for which I know he has a particular affection.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State suggests terminating the aid programme in Vietnam. I suggest that he look again at the report of the Select Committee after its visit to the country in 2007. It recognised that although the aid relationship needed to change, the graduation of Vietnam to middle-income status was fragile, that many good ideas that could be used elsewhere in the world were being tested, and that the aid relationship, although changing, should continue. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that again?

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan]

My hon. Friend refers to a proposed panel of inquiry on the Israeli side, to look into the funding of its NGOs. Our ambassador to Tel Aviv discussed the issue with the Israeli ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor, shortly after the Knesset vote on the issue. Officials raised the matter with one of the two members of the Knesset who had pressed for such funding investigation. We do not want such investigations to impede the legitimate work of NGOs in the west bank and elsewhere in the Palestinian territories.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

In light of the Minister’s reply, does he share the concern expressed by Norwegian Foreign Minister Støre about the Israeli Foreign Minister’s comments, which appear to delegitimise the work of brave NGOs such as B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights? It is important that the voices of those organisations, which are Israeli Jewish but express a different view from the Israeli Government, should continue to be heard.

[Mr Duncan]

I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. We are watching closely the treatment of the five NGOs concerned and we will do our utmost to ensure that they remain free to do their good work, even though some of their conclusions might disagree with the those of the Israeli Government.

Zimbabwe

Richard Burden Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

I, too, thank the House for this brief opportunity to debate some of the International Development Committee’s reflections following our visit to Zimbabwe in February. I endorse what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said about it being important that we went. Before we went, there was nervousness in some quarters about whether we would be sending mixed messages simply by going there. We were conscious that if things went wrong our visit could be seen as some kind of endorsement of the Mugabe regime or a weakening of the international community’s resolve; we were firm that we could not let that be the case, and I do not think it was.

It is important that we have a clear position on the gross abuses of human rights that went on there and are still going on, and that we make our position absolutely clear. However, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, and as the report underlines, Zimbabwe has huge potential as a country, but also has huge needs in human terms. In October, the United Nations Development Programme released its annual human development index, which puts the country last on the indices of education, health and the income of nations. According to UNICEF’s mid-year report, which was published in July, Zimbabwe had the most severe health-related emergency of 2010—a major measles outbreak in which there were 7,754 suspected cases and 517 people died. That was reported in 61 of the country’s 62 districts. The report states:

“Basic social services, such as access to safe water and coverage of immunization programmes, remain a cause for concern.”

We spent some time looking at those areas when we were in Zimbabwe in February. The report also notes that although schools remain open, the quality of learning “continues to be compromised”, often by

“teachers’ low morale, lack of teaching and learning material, and the poor infrastructure of most schools.”

In a whole range of areas, it is absolutely clear that the country has considerable needs.

UNICEF projects a final funding gap of $44,260,863, which is 40% of its needs. It states:

“If funding requirements are not met the following critical activities may not take place: improving the management of pneumonia and diarrhoea in children under five years, community-based management of acute malnutrition (CMAM), nutrition surveillance, emergency safe water and sanitation, life skills for HIV/AIDS prevention and health promotion in schools, and the protection and promotion of the rights of children within IDP and migrant-sending communities.”

Zimbabwe is an area of massive need and the evidence of our eyes suggests that we are right to be in there. We have made some suggestions about how the Department for International Development’s programmes could be improved or tweaked, but by and large the impact there is positive and we are focusing on the right things.

Let me endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the protracted relief programme. We saw various projects for which funding had started through that programme and it is clear that an impact is being made, but a number of interlocutors we came across were clearly concerned about the administration and costs of the programme. They had other concerns too, and this is where our report almost argues against itself. It says that we want to be clear that the audit procedures for the programme are robust enough, but one concern that was raised with us was whether, given the use of intermediary organisations, funding was being mediated in the right way and whether the voices of grass-roots community organisations that really know what needs to be done, and how it should be done, are getting through the bureaucracy so that programmes can be approved and money got to where it is needed. I do not think we have any great pearls of wisdom that enable us to say this or that must be done to the protracted relief programme—overall, I am comfortable with the shape of it—but I hope that DFID looks at whether the mechanisms for operating the programme are as good as they should be and whether they are getting resources to the places they need to go, and in the best way.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I have only just arrived in the Chamber and realise that this issue may already have been addressed. While in Zimbabwe, what information did members of the Committee garner from the ambassador about the potential for the neighbouring states to increase their role in effectively achieving a better solution for Zimbabwe? Those states are nearby and have a deep interest in doing exactly that.

[Richard Burden]

I hope to conclude my remarks by saying something about neighbouring states, because their role is crucial. The hon. Gentleman asks about the ambassador’s views on the matter. He has provided a briefing, but I have to confess that I have not seen it. Perhaps the Minister will give us a few ideas about the ambassador’s views during his winding-up speech. I shall return to some of the issues on the role of neighbouring states.

We need to engage and we are engaging. By and large, the focus of that is positive. However, it absolutely must be accompanied by our ensuring that measures are taken that express the international community’s—I was going to say displeasure, but it sounds a bit weak—views on what the ZANU-PF regime has been doing and continues to do. We must be clear about that.

Again, the right hon. Member for Gordon made it clear that this is an area where Mugabe uses the media inside Zimbabwe completely to distort what the measures that the international community is adopting are all about. While we were there, it was put about time and again that, somehow, the international community is taking action against the people of Zimbabwe. In many ways, the term “sanctions” is a misnomer for what we are doing there. There are targeted measures against individuals and organisations with a direct and responsible role in what goes on. Large amounts of cash and aid go in—probably not enough, as we have heard from UNICEF—that are directed, in the best way we can achieve, to assisting the people of Zimbabwe.

It is important that the measures taken against individuals who are responsible for some quite ghastly acts in that country remain in place and should be removed—indeed, there is an argument that they should be increased—only when we see clear and demonstrable steps towards democracy and respect for human rights. All the indications are that we are a long way from that.

Many of us who had not been to Zimbabwe before were quite surprised that in many ways we did not see the chaos that we perhaps thought we would see. Not only does that country have massive natural resources and massive potential, but we could see in Bulawayo and elsewhere that if the country were able to get itself together, had an economy that worked and had the right kind of governance, it could turn around really quickly.

The infrastructure that had been built up over many years was still there in many instances. There have been major steps forward. Since the dollarisation of the economy, the work of Tendai Biti has been really useful in putting Zimbabwe’s economy on a more rational basis. However, again, there is a dual view of what is going on there: the chaos that perhaps some of us expected to see was not there, yet we could see that the impact of the land seizures had undermined the economy and caused genuine suffering on a scale that is unacceptable. Just before we went to Zimbabwe, some Committee members saw the film “Mugabe and the White African”, which I recommend to hon. Members because it very graphically illustrates the human cost to and, indeed, bravery of some Zimbabweans in standing up to the Mugabe regime.

The land seizures continue, and a recent report by ZimOnline exposes the reality of them. The President and his wife Grace are said to own 14 farms, spanning at least 16,000 hectares. All ZANU-PF’s 56 politburo members, 98 MPs and 35 elected and unelected senators were allegedly allocated farms, and 10 provincial governors have seized farms, with four being multiple owners. Sixteen supreme court and high court judges own farms, too.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Not only is there violence against farmers but all farm workers have been driven away, so there is now almost no production on those farms which, like Zimbabwe, were massively productive. I urge the Government, wherever we can, to help to obtain an audit so that we can get those farms moving. The issue is not only who owns those farms but getting production going, because Zimbabwe should not be starving when it is such a fertile country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burden]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The way the land seizures have worked is wrong in so many respects. It makes make little economic sense, for the reason that he mentions, and it goes under the title of “land reform”, which is another huge misnomer. It invokes an image of land being taken from people who should not have it, do not use it properly or got it illegitimately and then redistributed to the people of Zimbabwe, but all the evidence is that that has just not happened. It has been redistributed to an elite, who have not used the land’s capacity as they should.

All that does not take away from the fact that land reform is a real issue, and that it needs to be confronted. I suspect that if my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he will say something about that, because the all-party Africa group has looked in some depth at the complicated questions of what land reform needs to be, and at the challenges that we have to face.

The land seizures are unacceptable, wrong and, as we saw in the film to which I referred, in many ways inhuman both to the owners of the land and, yes, to the workers who owed their livelihood to it. That is a challenge for us in the international community and, to return to the point that the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) made, to Zimbabwe’s neighbours, in particular. When Mugabe just ignores and cocks a snook at the decisions of the SADC tribunal, that is a problem not just for the people whose farms and livelihoods have been taken away, but for southern Africa as a whole and for the credibility of SADC itself. SADC countries need to face up to that, but most of all South Africa needs to face up to the fact that, in terms of securing leverage and change in Zimbabwe, its role is absolutely crucial. So far, it has not exercised that role as assertively as many of us would like.

Zimbabwe is a country with massive potential, and I endorse what the right hon. Member for Gordon says about elections. I want to see elections in Zimbabwe, but they must be free and fair. We are a long way from that, and it is not always easy for everybody to talk about the impediments to it. In September, an article in The Guardian mentioned how in a recent interview Morgan Tsvangirai seemed to have rather more confidence in the coalition of which he was a part than the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Liberal Democrats has in his. It was quite an amusing article, but it had a serious point, which was that Morgan Tsvangirai and the MDC have to walk a tightrope. In the ministries for which they are responsible, they must deliver for the people of Zimbabwe as best they can. Walking that tightrope keeps them there and active, and for some of their supporters and members, it keeps them alive. They must work with people who have been responsible for their persecution for many years and, at the same time, they must retain their independence, build their base and try to build a functioning democracy in Zimbabwe. That is a pretty fearsome tightrope to have to walk. They and the people of Zimbabwe need our help to do so.

I am convinced that we must maintain the dual approach that we have adopted of targeted measures that are appropriate and effective against members of the ZANU-PF regime that have brought the country to ruin, combined with an aid and assistance programme that focuses on the real needs of the people. That programme must be responsive to the voices of the people of Zimbabwe and must address their very real humanitarian problems. It must boost the economy of Zimbabwe so that it can achieve its potential. If Zimbabwe achieves that potential, its role in southern Africa will be very positive and it really should have that role. It behoves us all to do what we can to ensure that that happens.