1.15 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): It is the great misfortune of the people of Zimbabwe that Robert Mugabe's regime has no regard for human rights, the rule of law, or the responsibility of government to provide competent economic management. A comparatively prosperous country has been plunged into poverty by the recklessness of its ruling party. Members of the Zimbabwean Opposition have been subjected to persistent violence and intimidation. And on the country's farms, regime thugs have subjected owners and workers, the great majority black, but also white, to a campaign of terror. Throughout, the Government of Zimbabwe have acted in defiance of the international community and have used every device to present problems of their own making as the fault of the former colonial power, the United Kingdom. Let me start by briefly recalling the context.

As the House is aware, the Lancaster house conference in 1979 brought independence to Zimbabwe after a long and bloody conflict. One of the main issues at Lancaster house was land reform, and the agreement set out a clear pathway, based on justice and the rule of law, for land ownership in Zimbabwe to be extended. The British Government at the time made it clear that no one donor, including the UK, could pay for the entirety of such a process, but they did commit £47 million to land reform over the following years. It is a mark of the Zimbabwean Government's failure over that period that they handed back £3 million of that £47 million, because they had insufficient projects on which to spend it-a sign that until the late 1990s, the process, whose pace was dictated by the Zimbabwean Government, had been progressing at a relatively modest pace and with a low political priority. This coincided with years of growing prosperity for Zimbabwe.

The idea that this was some kind of golden age for Mugabe's Zimbabwe is false, however. His brutality and desire to stifle opposition by any available means was also increasingly clear. During the 1980s, some 20,000 people were massacred by North Korean-trained soldiers in Matabeleland-atrocities that went largely unremarked by the British Government of the day. Those massacres were only ended when the ZAPU party of Joshua Nkomo was subsumed within Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF, beginning a virtual one-party state in Zimbabwe, which lasted for some 10 years.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): The Foreign Secretary is perfectly correct to place it on record that the British Government of the time did not make the protest that they should have done. But will he also put it on record that nor did the Opposition at the time?

Mr. Straw: We have looked through Hansard, and the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but it was the Government who had the responsibility-I am sure that a point will be made back to me in a moment. There were Adjournment debates about the massacres in Matabeleland, and the response was remarkably muted, not least because of the reassuring words that the House were offered. Speaking in 2002, Lord Howe said of that period that it was

"a difficult situation for Mr. Mugabe to handle."

At the time, in response to a debate initiated, I think, by a Labour Opposition Member, the then Minister of State in the Foreign Office, Malcolm Rifkind, said:

"We recognise that the Zimbabwe authorities face a security problem in Matabeleland."-[Official Report, 25 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 606.]

Perhaps they had faced a security problem there, but massacring 20,000 people is no response to a security problem in any civilised country.

Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: I should like to make a little progress.

Serious opposition to Mugabe's rule emerged again in the late 1990s with the formation of the Movement for Democratic Change, led by Morgan Tsvangirai. The MDC's influence became clear in 2000, when a referendum on constitutional changes saw ZANU-PF's first-ever defeat in a popular poll. This time Robert Mugabe responded to opposition to his rule by seizing on the issue of land reform, breaking away from the pathway based on the rule of law which had been agreed at Lancaster house-by him-and beginning a policy of violent appropriation.

So great was international concern at this that President Mugabe reluctantly agreed that his Foreign Minister, Stanislaus Mudenge, would meet a delegation of Commonwealth Foreign Ministers in Abuja in September 2001, under the aegis of President Obasanjo of Nigeria. I attended that meeting on behalf of the United Kingdom. After some very tough negotiations, we agreed a deal-between the six Commonwealth Ministers and the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister-to end the crisis. The text is available. The deal was that the international community would provide further money for land reform in exchange for a return to the rule of law in Zimbabwe. I, as it were, put a cheque from the British Government on the table.

Mugabe, however, quickly reneged on the agreement, not least because international focus was rapidly moving elsewhere following the atrocities of 11 September, five days later, in New York and Washington. The farm invasions and human rights abuses that had preceded the Abuja meeting were swiftly resumed, and the abuses continue today. They form part of a wider picture of disastrous policies in Zimbabwe, which have brought economic ruin on a once prospering country: a man-made tragedy which Zimbabwe could and should have avoided.

Mr. Field: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for not giving way earlier, because what he has said strengthens my point.

Not many Labour Members are now happy to defend the Government's stance on Iraq in public, although I am one. One of the points that is always thrown at us at public meetings is that the Government were resolute in Iraq but lack that resolution in Zimbabwe. What are we going to do, apart from organising protests, to stop the genocide that is unfolding before us?

Mr. Straw: I am deeply grateful for my right hon. Friend's support on Iraq, although I must add that he is in good and wide company. [Interruption.] Yes, and deep. I shall offer him some counsel after the debate.

What my right hon. Friend is displaying is, of course, frustration. But although what is going on in Zimbabwe is appalling, the present situation-in terms of human rights-is not as terrible as that of the mid-1980s, when the then Government sat on their hands. Nor is it as terrible as what happened under Saddam's regime, over 35 years, on any scale. We should be clear about that. We have not been able to do everything-and I shall deal specifically with what my right hon. Friend has in mind-but that does not mean that we have not been able to do anything.

Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Rather than making a comparison with Iraq, will my right hon. Friend consider western Darfur, where the international community has been extremely effective-hopefully, at least-in putting pressure on the Sudanese Government to deal with their humanitarian problems, to give the people protection and food, and to allow aid to go in while the political situation is being resolved?

Mr. Straw: As I shall explain, we have done a huge amount to build up international consensus. There are limits to that, but if we had not worked by engaging fully with the European Union and the Commonwealth we would have been able to do far less, however loud our protests. I might add that one of the reasons why the full extent of Mugabe's economic policies is disguised is the extent, and relative efficiency, of the food aid that we are providing. That has not been the case in respect of western Darfur.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I will give way once more; then I must make some progress.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Foreign Secretary rightly mentioned the massacre in Matabeleland in 1983. Some Conservative Members made representations to the Government, not least by tabling questions. I deeply regret the fact that the Government of the day did not act to deal with what was clearly happening, for whatever reason-in my view, a lack of moral principle. Will the Foreign Secretary now announce that additional action will be taken to help the poor people of Zimbabwe?

Mr. Straw: I will set out the action that we are already taking, but I have no announcement to make about additional action. The action that we have taken was dependent not on a debate, but on a clear analysis.

The hon. Gentleman was right in saying that he has been consistent in his representations about what has happened in Zimbabwe. Indeed, I have before me a question he put to the then Foreign Secretary, Geoffrey Howe, on 22 February 1984. He asked a fine question; I am afraid he received a dead bat of an answer.

Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I want to make some progress. I may be able to take an intervention later.

Let me spell out the facts. Three quarters of the Zimbabwean population are now living below the poverty line. Some 7 million people have required food aid in recent seasons, in a country which only a few years ago exported food to its neighbours. But despite the evidence of another humanitarian crisis in prospect for this year, the Government of Zimbabwe claim that international food aid will not be needed. That decision not to ask for assistance will make it difficult for donors to deliver an effective international response if and when food aid is in fact required.

Alongside his disastrous policies, Mugabe's ZANU-PF party continues to suppress all opposition to his rule. Both print and broadcast media in Zimbabwe are now virtually a Government-controlled monopoly. The judgment in the trial of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangarai has still not been handed down, although the trial itself concluded months ago.

The Zimbabwean authorities also continue to devise new powers to stamp out legitimate opposition, such as detention for up to a month without trial, which could be used to suppress dissent and protest. According to a report issued by a South African-based non-governmental organisation last March, 90 per cent. of opposition MPs in Zimbabwe have been subjected to human rights violations since 2000: 16 per cent. have been tortured, 24 per cent. say that they have suffered assassination attempts, and three have died as a result of assaults.

Mr. Gibb: In March this year, the Prime Minister made an important speech on global terror in which he, in effect, announced a new doctrine of intervention in cases in which states

"oppress and brutalise their people",

which he rightly saw as a future source of international terror. That was an impressive and important speech, but I am unclear about how the new doctrine applies to countries such as Zimbabwe, particularly in view of other international commitments in respect of our troops.

Mr. Straw: I shall go through the things we have done, and the things we are not going to do, in a moment. If we are to deal with the Zimbabwe issue, however, we must avoid doing what Robert Mugabe wants most, and making this a bilateral dispute between the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. That is at the heart of Mugabe's strategy.

Of course the purpose of debates in the House of Commons is to ensure that Ministers are accountable and doing what the House wants, and there should be proper debate. But I urge those who feel that we have not done enough-I believe that we have done all we could reasonably do, and more-to think about the implications of suggesting that there are things we could do that would not work, and would have exactly the effect that Mugabe seeks.

I am aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has made the same point-that because of our policy of having had to carry out armed intervention in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and the example he used, Kosovo, we should consider the notion of what amounts to armed intervention in respect of Zimbabwe. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to make it clear when they speak what they are asking for. We need to know whether armed intervention is on their agenda-that is fundamental to our having an effective debate. If they are not calling for armed intervention, the Opposition must accept that they are trying to score some points on this issue without having a clear strategy.

I recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes put to me a series of points on Zimbabwe, saying that we ought to follow the example of Kosovo. After he had made those points, I wrote to him to ask whether he was proposing that the United Kingdom take military action against Zimbabwe. He wrote back to me to say that no, he had never suggested that. If that is the case, what on earth was the point of raising the example of Kosovo? The difference between Kosovo and Zimbabwe is that in Kosovo we contemplated and took action, whereas we are not contemplating taking military action in Zimbabwe, nor do we have any intention of so doing.

Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) (Lab): Is not the danger of what the Opposition are saying that unrealistic expectations will be raised? There is no chance of any neighbouring country providing bases, and that is apart from the point that my right hon. Friend makes about this situation being construed as a bilateral dispute. Will he also confirm that there is no realistic prospect of the matter even reaching the agenda of the United Nations Security Council because of African opposition?

Mr. Straw: Indeed, and I shall come on to that, but first it is worth my recording some of the points that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes made. In August 2002, he asked what the difference was between ethnic cleansing and state torture in Kosovo and Zimbabwe, and why the Government had been so keen to act in Kosovo and yet were so inactive on Zimbabwe. Given that we have done a great deal in respect of Zimbabwe apart from military action, the clear implication of that question was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was proposing military action in Zimbabwe. On 1 April last year, he said again:

"We acted in Kosovo because of unacceptable floutings of human rights . . . The oppressed and persecuted people of Zimbabwe . . . see nothing post-colonial in asking us to intervene; rather, they see it as a moral obligation".-[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 209WH.]

I have to say, however, that I have received no invitations from anyone in Zimbabwe, least of all the Movement for Democratic Change, for us to take military action.

In February, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we had to look at all the options. When I finally pinned him down, he said that he had not called for military action in Zimbabwe. Just to pick up on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) was raising, what on earth could the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes have been calling for if he was raising the Kosovo example except military action, given that the difference between the treatment of Zimbabwe and Kosovo was military action?

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way, but it is quite obvious that he has so little to say about what the Government are going to do in Zimbabwe that he is fabricating a case to which he can then try to provide an answer. May I make it absolutely clear, as I have on a number of occasions, that I have never suggested military intervention in Zimbabwe? I ask the right hon. Gentleman again this simple question, which is an important one in terms of human rights: what is the difference between ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe?

Mr. Straw: Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands that where there is ethnic cleansing, there is ethnic cleansing. The really serious ethnic cleansing-given that he wishes to lower this debate to a partisan knockabout-took place when he was supporting a Conservative Government in 1985, when 20,000 died in what was plain ethnic cleansing. The then Government, far from taking military action against the Mugabe regime, applauded it and said, "Oh well, they've got a bit of a security problem."

I shall just run through what we have done in respect of Zimbabwe, which might assist my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others. We have kept thousands of Zimbabweans alive by providing food and other humanitarian help. We are the biggest cash donor of all and have spent £67 million on humanitarian and food aid since 2001. We have helped Zimbabwe's many AIDS victims, and our programme to help those suffering and those left behind has involved expenditure of £26.5 million so far. There are more than 700,000 AIDS orphans in Zimbabwe. We are actively supporting those working for peaceful change in Zimbabwe: lawyers, trade unionists, civil rights activists, the free media and Members of Parliament. We have given asylum to those persecuted by Mugabe and allowed others at risk to remain in the United Kingdom for now. At the same time, we have borne down hard on illegal immigration with the introduction of a visa regime. We have helped the large community in Zimbabwe with ties to the United Kingdom by maintaining a full embassy and consular service to them.

In terms of international action, we have hit Mugabe where it hurts through a travel ban and asset freeze on him and his henchmen. We know that they hate the ignominy and inconvenience that that brings them. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and others who have raised this point that we have been in the lead on sanctions against Zimbabwe. They were only going to be effective if we had international consensus. We could easily have put sanctions on Zimbabwe's political elite ourselves, but that would have raised the question, "Well, so what?" If those people had then been able to travel to every other country in the European Union and to the United States, and had suffered no opprobrium from the Commonwealth, it would have been we who were mocked, not Mugabe.

However, the effect of our engagement in the European Union, and of a great deal of effort, has been that we have got the other countries of the EU-initially 15 and now 25-many of whom know very little about Zimbabwe, and for whom it is not a particular issue because they have no history with it, to accept our case for sanctions against the Zimbabwe elite, in the face of quite strong African lobbying. I got those sanctions introduced in 2002, at a time when relations with Germany and France were difficult, and we got them tightened last year and extended this year. We have also persuaded the United States to introduce a similar embargo-

Mr. Richard Spring (West Suffolk) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman persuaded the United States?

Mr. Straw: Yes, we did. We worked very hard with the United States, and I worked very hard with Secretary Powell, to achieve that. Alongside that, we managed to get the Commonwealth to take tough action on Zimbabwe, which led initially to its suspension from the councils of the Commonwealth because it had failed to run its elections properly. Then, because of a further, tough decision in November 2003 by the Commonwealth Heads of Government, led courageously by President Obasanjo of Nigeria, the Zimbabweans decided to pull out of the Commonwealth altogether rather than continue to accept sanctions.

In addition, we have established an arms embargo in respect of Zimbabwe, again throughout the European Union. That would have been easy for us to do, but ineffective. However, it is effective with 15-and now 25-European Union members, and it is hobbling the Zimbabwean military where it hurts.

Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Foreign Secretary for the sanctions that have been applied to some people to restrict their travel. When hon. Members from both sides of this House met some Zimbabwean Opposition members, they asked us for a modest extension of the list of such people. Is my right hon. Friend saying that he just does not command the support among our European colleagues to achieve a modest extension to the list of people to whom the travel restrictions should apply?

Mr. Straw: We are always open to proposals. We obtained quite a substantial extension this year when the sanctions came up for renewal, and we would be happy to consider any future suggestions from my right hon. Friend.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): Is my right hon. Friend saying that on no occasion would this country feel that, as a country with a particular historical relationship with Zimbabwe, we could go a little further than the European Union? I am thinking particularly of the Ministers in the Mugabe Government whose children are being educated privately in this country, while the children of the vast majority of Zimbabweans cannot even get to schools because Mugabe has them.

Mr. Straw: I am not saying that there would be no such occasion. We go further than our European Union colleagues in many ways, and we are always open to proposals for extending bans, although it happens that the legal base for bans is different depending on whether we are acting bilaterally or through the European Union as a whole. I thought carefully about the issue of families when it came up. Generally, I think that we should target the real evildoers and decision makers rather than their families, but I accept that the House might have a different point of view on that issue.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con) rose-

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I shall get on with my speech.

Mr. Howarth: I am very grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. He said earlier that one of the actions taken by the British Government was to provide Zimbabwe with food aid, but is it not the case that some 90 per cent. of such aid is not reaching the proper recipients? What can he tell us about that, and is he aware that according to the shadow justice Minister of the Movement for Democratic Change, David Coulthard, during the Lupane by-election people were being told that unless they voted ZANU-PF, they would not get food aid? What are the Government doing to ensure that the food aid given by the British people gets to the people of Zimbabwe who need it?

Mr. Straw: We are aware that people have been intimidated by being told that unless they vote in a particular way, they will not get their food aid. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that 90 per cent. of food aid does not reach its intended recipients is wrong, according to the best information that we have. The World Food Programme monitors such aid very carefully and most of it gets to the intended recipients, but that does not mean that the hon. Gentleman's first point is inaccurate. There is plenty of evidence of people being intimidated and encouraged, as it were, to change their political approach in return for food aid.

Sir Nicholas Winterton rose-

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I want to deal with an issue that is central to this debate, and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead raised earlier: the role of the international community, particularly the United Nations.

We were able to take action in respect of Iraq because of its defiance of mandatory UN Security Council resolutions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is familiar with the story. Also, we took action in Afghanistan in pursuit of instructions from the Security Council, and in respect of Kosovo, although there was a period when we were acting without direct mandate; that action was endorsed by the Security Council retrospectively.

There has been no Security Council resolution in respect of Zimbabwe, and let me explain to the House why. We discuss Zimbabwe with the United Nations very regularly-particularly with the UN secretariat and agencies-and it is fully aware of the situation. Its own programmes are very actively engaged in providing food and other aid.

For three years, at the instigation of the United Kingdom, the European Union has tabled a resolution in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, drawing attention to the widespread violation of human rights by the Government of Zimbabwe. Regrettably, other African members of the UNCHR have used procedural motions to block discussion of those resolutions. That highlights the fact that many countries, including Zimbabwe's neighbours, see the situation differently from us. Exposing those differences in a body such as the UNCHR is one thing; but it is my belief that it would be counter-productive to do so in so high-profile an arena as the UN Security Council, as some Members have suggested doing. I am as certain as I can be that President Mugabe would dearly like us to seek action by the Security Council and then fail, as that would deliver him the propaganda coup of exposing divisions within the international community. Our view is that doing so now-to try but to fail-would put the cause of democracy in Zimbabwe back, not forward.

I have spelled out the action that we have been taking, and that remains the case. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes makes some comment from a sedentary position, but there is a question that he must deal with. He will doubtless imply that what we need to do is to invade Zimbabwe, but we are not going to do so. If he is not suggesting that, he needs to say exactly what his proposal is and how it differs from what we have undertaken. In all the huff and puff that we have heard from him in the past three years, he has never come up with a single constructive proposal. Either we have already put what he proposes into practice, or it cannot be put into practice because of a failure to obtain international consensus.

The second thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say is, "Take it to the United Nations." Of course we would take it to the UN if we thought that doing so would help. But our judgment is that, far from helping, taking it to the Security Council-still less to the General Assembly-and then failing would actually undermine the cause that we all seek: a democratic and free Zimbabwe. He might wish to address that point.

Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): Perhaps we can all agree on the fact that Zimbabwe is a test for Africa. There is no value in the New Partnership for Africa's Development if Africa itself is not going to try to sort out the problems of Zimbabwe. Can we not agree that Presidents Mbeki, Obasanjo and Museveni need to address this issue, which is primarily one for Africa? If they cannot address it, there is very little that can be done for Africa. All that we are doing through the European Commission, on international development and in terms of meeting the millennium development goals will be as nothing without that. So can we in this Chamber please agree that this is a challenge for Africa and our Commonwealth colleagues in Africa?

Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman: it is indeed a test for Africa. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes is trying to suggest that it is somehow a test for this country or this Government. We are there to help, but as the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) so wisely and shrewdly pointed out-I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes is listening-the idea that the United Kingdom, as the former colonial power, and in the absence of an African consensus to get to grips with a problem that stares it in the face, can take action beyond that which we are already taking is pie in the sky. That raises expectations beyond the point at which they can be fulfilled, but worse still, it feeds the Mugabe propaganda that we still hanker after exercising some kind of imperialist, colonialist power there, or that we still have it.

Several hon. Members rose-

Mr. Straw: I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East.

Donald Anderson: I want to reinforce my right hon. Friend's point. When the Foreign Affairs Committee recently visited New York, we sought advice on this point in particular, not only in respect of our own mission but of many others. It was absolutely clear that there was no prospect of getting such action on to the agenda, so to suggest or infer otherwise is not only gesture politics but wholly ineffective and counter-productive.

Mr. Straw: I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt).

Mr. Derek Wyatt (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab): If the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting did actually agree that President Obasanjo of Nigeria is to be in charge of talking to Mugabe regularly, how many times has he visited Zimbabwe since December and how many times per week is he in touch? It seems to us that things have got much worse since December. What on earth can we do, given the circumstances?

Mr. Straw: President Obasanjo has been very active and courageous on the issue of Zimbabwe as he has on so much else, including the deep challenges affecting his own country. But the responsibility for such matters lies not just with President Obasanjo; it also lies with other African leaders. The Prime Minister and I have had an ongoing dialogue with President Mbeki of South Africa and his Foreign Minister, Nkosazana Zuma, and we have encouraged them to shift their position. We respect the view that they are taking but we do not altogether agree with it. However, in the end South Africa is the sovereign nation next door to Zimbabwe, and it is suffering worse than we are from the effects of mismanagement in Zimbabwe. But we have encouraged President Mbeki to continue with the private talks between the Movement for Democratic Change and ZANU-PF that he says have begun to develop. We have yet to see a positive result, but if they produce one we will be the first to cheer.

David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Mugabe is a notorious tyrant, as we all know, and he knows the loathing that Britain has for him. On the question of consistency, is my right hon. Friend aware that when Labour Members repeatedly raised the issue of the police state under Smith in the 1960s and the action that was required, the then Conservative Opposition were totally opposed to tough sanctions, and argued time and again that sanctions were ineffective and should not be applied against the illegal regime? At least we are consistent in opposing every form of tyranny.

Mr. Straw: I do indeed remember that, and the failure of Governments to take action at that stage against the regime of Ian Smith laid some of the foundations for the political instability that has followed.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Foreign Secretary knows that I entirely accept his good faith, and that I do not try to score silly points. He would surely agree that it is important for the Government to bring up all violations with the Zimbabwean representative in this country, the ambassador. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr.Mullin), about that, and received a letter saying, "I do not believe that raising this issue with the ambassador will lead to any change in Zimbabwe policy." Well, it may not, but that is no excuse for not highlighting violations. I am talking about the closure of Peterhouse school and the imprisonment of the rector, the headmaster, which is depriving black children of the opportunity to go there. That amounts to a real violation. Whenever such matters are drawn to the Foreign Secretary's attention, will he please ensure that the ambassador knows how we feel?

Mr. Straw: I have not seen the exchange of correspondence, but I think that the hon. Gentleman makes an entirely fair point-and the answer to his question is yes.

I have spelled out a list of 10 actions that are designed to keep Zimbabweans alive, to help its AIDS victims, to support those working for peaceful change, to give asylum to those persecuted by Mugabe, to help the large community in Zimbabwe with ties to the United Kingdom, to hit Mugabe where it hurts, to hobble the Zimbabwean military, to build and lead an international coalition against Mugabe and to make clear our readiness to help rebuild Zimbabwe.

As I have already said, there are three things that we are not going to do. First, we will not impose economic sanctions on Zimbabwe since this would only hurt ordinary Zimbabweans. Secondly, as we have spelled out, we will not send in troops-for reasons that I hope that the whole House accepts. Thirdly-I invite the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes to take note-we will not play Mugabe's game by making this a "UK versus Zimbabwe" issue. We are stronger and he is weaker when we are part of an international coalition for change, not running our own isolated campaign.

Before I conclude, I would like to deal with the issue of cricket tours. I know that hon. Members are concerned, as I am, both about the England tour to Zimbabwe this winter and about Zimbabwe's participation in the champions trophy one-day tournament in London this September, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has drawn the House's attention.

On 10 June, a sub-committee of the International Cricket Council recommended that Zimbabwe's test matches scheduled for the rest of this year should be deferred. That period covers the planned England tour. It happens that today, as we conduct our debate, the ICC is deciding whether to ratify the recommendation. Even if it does, let me make it clear that that would affect the test series in Zimbabwe, but not the one-day games to which the England and Wales Cricket Board is also committed. The Government's position remains clear: we do not have state-run sport in this country, nor would we want it. Decisions on cricket tours are rightly for the cricket authorities to take.

On the visit of the Zimbabwean team to England, we do not believe that stopping Zimbabwean cricketers from travelling to the UK will advance our cause or the cause of the Zimbabwean people, any more than it would have been appropriate to have banned the Zimbabwean team from the Commonwealth games. They came over here and took part in those games. The EU travel ban is rightly targeted not at sportsmen and women, but at members of the regime.

Kate Hoey: Is not the difference between cricket and other sports in Zimbabwe the fact that cricket, very specifically, has been used by Mugabe as a tool for developing his own political purposes? He is the patron-more than the Queen here-of cricket and he has abused that fact. That is why it is unacceptable to have a Zimbabwean team coming here in the name of the country and Mugabe. It is certainly not acceptable for them to come into my constituency to play at the Oval, surrounded by hundreds of Zimbabwean asylum seekers.

Mr. Straw: Any visit here by the Zimbabwean cricket team is likely to engender very strong feelings and possibly peaceful protest, which is the inherent right of anyone living in a democracy. That is different from saying that we should ban the team from coming here. One of the tests of a Government in a democracy is whether they allow to take place all sorts of things with which they happen to disagree rather than agree. I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says about her constituency because I happen to live in it and I have been well represented by her over many years-

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Especially on fox hunting.

Mr. Straw: Yes, we could do with a bit of fox hunting in the backstreets of Lambeth, given the large number of foxes there. Leaving that issue aside-

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): Yes, please.

Mr. Straw: I hear my hon. Friend say, "yes, please". So leaving that aside, of course I am aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, but I ask her to take account of the fact that what people feel and what individuals do by way of protest is different from the issue of whether Governments should use their authority to stop people travelling.

I have set out in the debate all the actions that we are taking. I am extremely happy to listen carefully to proposals from both sides of the House about what further action we could take. We have never dismissed ideas or proposals for further action just because we have not, as it were, invented them. That is not and never has been my approach to government. So far as we can judge, however, I believe that, in the current circumstances, we are doing almost all that we could do.

We support those in Zimbabwe who are working for the return of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. So, along with the rest of the international community, we are offering political and practical support to those who oppose the regime and are working for peaceful change. We stand ready to work with any Administration in Zimbabwe who have been democratically elected through a free and fair vote, and who are committed to respecting human rights and the rule of law and to addressing poverty.

We recognise that such a Government would need the full support of the international community in rebuilding the country. We would expect to play an important role in any credible recovery programme, and we are already in discussion with other international donors-including the European Commission, the United States and the World Bank-to prepare contingency plans for rebuilding Zimbabwe's economy and institutions, once democracy has been restored.

I am clear that, however long it takes, this great country will once again have a bright future as a democracy. Achieving that democracy will remain the focus of the Government's policy. We will continue to work with the broadest international coalition to apply pressure for change, while helping to improve the humanitarian situation of the Zimbabwean people. A return to democracy and to policies that help rather than harm the poor is the best hope for the Zimbabwean people to rebuild their once prosperous country. For our part, we will do all that we can to bring such a change about.

Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes) (Con): I welcome the debate, but I have to say that it is not before time. It is, in fact, the first time during the seven years of this Government that we have had a debate on Zimbabwe in Government time. I am nevertheless grateful for it, because I think that it is important.

I genuinely hoped that the Government's belated recognition of the need to debate the issue indicated that they were at last beginning seriously to address it, but, having listened to the Foreign Secretary, I have to say that I am disappointed. He made a pathetic, complacent speech that brought no hope or comfort to the oppressed people of Zimbabwe. It was long on historical analysis and more than just short on action, given that he began by saying that he was not going to announce any further or new action. He was high on accusations of a historical nature and Aunt Sallies but low on answers and, indeed, on accuracy.

After those seven years I could indulge in a sort of "recherche du temps perdu", but it would serve little purpose because although Zimbabwe's problems are rooted in the past, they are very much current and in the future. Four years on from the last rigged parliamentary elections and two years on from the "stolen" presidential election, preparations for the next parliamentary elections are already being made. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), sitting on the Front Bench, seems to be surprised about these facts. If he had bothered to study what has happened in Zimbabwe, he might realise how serious the situation is. The problems are not only bad, but getting worse, and they must be urgently addressed.

As the House knows, I have been talking about Zimbabwe a lot over the past two years, and I have sometimes been criticised for spending too much time on it. I make no apologies for that. Zimbabwe is not, as someone once admonished me, just another African country, on which we should not seek to impose our western values. Zimbabwe has enjoyed democracy and the rule of law. Its people have known prosperity, full stomachs and economic stability. All of that is now lost or under threat.

Nor is Zimbabwe a far-away country of which we know little. It is a country that we know well, and for which we must still feel a sense of responsibility, even if it is only a moral one. We cannot say that it has nothing to do with us and that to seek to interfere smacks of neo-colonialism. That is not what the dispossessed black farm workers told me when I met them in the woods outside Harare two years ago, and neither is it what the politicians and the many other victims of Mugabe's brutality told me. They believed that this country had a moral duty to act. They heard the Prime Minister announce as much on one occasion. They feel a sense of betrayal at what they now see as our inactivity.

The simple fact is that, month after month, the situation in Zimbabwe is getting worse. It was bad enough when I was there. I saw some pretty horrifying sights-of ethnic cleansing, political intimidation and food queues.However, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)-who cannot be with us today as he is in Darfur-visited Zimbabwe only a few months ago. The situation that he witnessed was far worse even than what I had seen. Quite simply, we are watching the birth of a failed state, the victory of crude despotism and the failure of the international community to respond sufficiently.

I am baffled by the inertia with which the international community has responded to Mugabe's vile regime. The most recent International Crisis Group report appeared on 19 April. It stated that

"the response has been inadequate and ineffectual at all levels",

and that the policies of the US and the EU

"do not begin to address the roots of the crisis."

I repeat to the Foreign Secretary that I am not advocating a military solution. I am asking for the form of international action that the ICG and other bodies are also seeking. I shall come to that a little later.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the nature of the crisis in Zimbabwe, which can best be described as a series of deficits. The first is the democratic deficit. That began with the patently rigged parliamentary election four years ago; then, two years ago, the presidential election was stolen. At the time, the Foreign Secretary admitted that the Government

"do not recognise the result, or its legitimacy."-[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]

There has been a systematic undermining of the principles of free and fair elections, and the ironically named Harare principle-as well as the principles of the Southern African Development Community-have been flouted. In the past years, dishonest voter registration has allowed Mugabe effectively to rig the voter register. There has been rigged vote counting, with ballot papers going missing. There has also been voter intimidation and bribery, and the physical persecution and even murder of political opponents.

We now learn that voter registration for next year's elections has begun, without any independent supervision or verification. In one case at least, the sitting Opposition MP was not even told that the registration was happening until after it was completed. Mugabe has announced that he will have no observers in Zimbabwe for the election. The democratic deficit is almost complete.

The next deficit is the rule of law deficit. Many Opposition MPs in Zimbabwe have been subject to murder attempts, torture, assaults and arrest. A recent survey of Movement for Democratic Change Members of Parliament found that 42 per cent. claimed to have been assaulted in the past four years-most commonly, as it happens, by the police-while 24 per cent. said that they had survived assassination attempts.

Because of the politicisation of the police and judiciary in Zimbabwe, there is rarely any legal comeback. Despite the immense courage of many Zimbabwean lawyers, the once proud rule of law in Zimbabwe lies in tatters. The independent judiciary used to be one of the pillars of democracy, but it has been severely compromised, and the Bench is now packed with Mugabe supporters. The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was adopted before the 2002 elections and it requires journalists to provide detailed information about themselves. If they do not do so, they will not receive a licence for journalism.

The law has been used to close Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, and to arrest people on the charge of "suspicion of journalism". The state now claims a virtual monopoly of written and broadcast media, and foreign correspondents, as we know, are a thing of the past. The Public Order and Security Act restricts freedom of association. The Government in Zimbabwe have used it to stamp out any form of activity or protest by opposition groups. The rule of law has been exchanged in Zimbabwe for the rule of tyranny and the organised mob.

Another deficit is the law and order deficit. Mugabe has skilfully created a society in which his orders to kill, maim and destroy are easily carried out. His private militia-the so-called Green Bombers-are, quite simply, evil. The methods in which they are trained in the special camps to which they are often abducted include systematised violence, organised rape and brutal abuse and humiliation. The first-hand accounts from some former members of the Green Bombers who have fled to South Africa are chilling.

Then there is the economic and social deficit. Zimbabwe's economy is among the fastest-shrinking in the world. Unemployment has risen to more than 70 per cent. As recently as 1997, Zimbabwe was twice as rich as the median sub-Saharan nation, but now it is crashing. Inflation still rides high at over 440 per cent., gross domestic product has shrunk by one third in five years, and the black-market exchange rate still flourishes, despite legislation to outlaw it. At the official exchange rate, £1 is worth 815 Zimbabwean dollars. On the black market, £1 buys 7,000 Zimbabwean dollars.

Now we hear threats of the wholesale nationalisation of agricultural land, even though current land seizures have already led to the collapse of Zimbabwe's once prosperous agriculture sector, with all the attendant consequences on food production.

There is, of course, the humanitarian deficit. Zimbabwe has lived on food aid since 2001. Last year, 6.5 million people, more than half the population, depended on international help. Mugabe is now refusing help from the UN's World Food Programme. Regime officials say that Zimbabwe will have a bumper maize crop this year of 2.4 million tonnes-more than enough to meet domestic needs. People who believe that will believe anything.

A report from the Zimbabwe vulnerability assessment committee-incidentally, that is a Government body-concludes that 2.3 million people in rural Zimbabwe

"will not be able to meet their minimum cereal needs during the 2004-05 season."

We all know why Mugabe lies. He knows that, by keeping the UN and aid agencies out of Zimbabwe, he can ensure that his regime controls all food aid. Mugabe thinks he can feed his people by doing black-market deals to buy grain and then tell the world that it is home grown.

Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: I will in a moment, but I want to finish this point.

It is of serious concern that two American companies are in cahoots with Mugabe. Sentry Financial Corporation and Dimon Inc. are involved in the tobacco-for-maize scam. I hope that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) chairs, will investigate that scam as, surprisingly, our Government do not seem to know about it. On 24 June, Baroness Amos told the House of Lords:

"I am aware of the rumours with respect to Zimbabwe selling tobacco in exchange for maize."-[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 June 2004; Vol. 662, c. 1345.]

The reports are not rumours, though: they are real. At least the US authorities are aware of what is happening, and the US Congress and Treasury are now investigating the two firms involved.

Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing well with his description of the crisis. Is not another reason why President Mugabe and his regime have failed to recognise the existence of the crisis that, if they did so, they would have to recognise the total failure of their programmes?

Mr. Ancram: When I was there, my impression was of a tyranny that was trying to oppress its people and to get the world to avert its gaze. I shall tell the House about one of the things that touched me most. I met some black farm workers who were living in the woods. They were destitute, lacking clothes, food or houses. Their children's schools had been closed. As I left, one said to me, "Please don't let the world forget us." That is at the heart of what we want to make sure that Robert Mugabe does not achieve: he must not make the world forget about what is happening in Zimbabwe.

There are other huge problems in Zimbabwe. AIDS is rife: one third of the population has HIV. The Government's AIDS levy is failing to get through to the front-line services. Hospitals and clinics cannot afford even the most basic of AIDS testing kits.

Sometimes I wonder whether the money is actually being directed to the fight against AIDS. A recent National Audit Office report on the HIV/AIDS strategy of the Department for International Development was highly critical. It found that DFID's country assistance plans do not address the issue of HIV/AIDS consistently and that many of them

"failed to consider the effect of the epidemic on poverty reduction".

I hope that the Minister will address that specific point when he winds up later.

I turn briefly to cricket. We meet on the same day as the International Cricket Council meets to take a final view on the issue. Sometimes I am told that I should not try to bring politics into sport. In a sense, the Foreign Secretary was trying to suggest that that was what I was doing, in his attempt to make political capital out of the debate. I have not tried to bring politics into sport. This is not a question of sport versus politics. It is a question of morality versus money. Given the situation I have described in Zimbabwe, I cannot see how in conscience England's cricketers should be asked to play even one-day internationals in Zimbabwe this autumn. The tests have gone, but we are told that the one-day matches are still on. The Zimbabwe Cricket Union, whose patron-as we have been reminded-is Mugabe, has already played cynical and apparently racist politics with its own team selection. Anything that gives comfort to the ZCU or to Mugabe in terms of sport should be abandoned. The tour should not take place, full stop. The Government should clearly and unequivocally say so, and say so now. Unfortunately, we have once again had only weasel words from Ministers.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): My right hon. Friend has summed up the point very well, but does he recall that for the South African cricket team of 30 years ago, it was the racially biased opposition to the selection of Basil d'Oliveira that led to South African cricket being outlawed and boycotted? It was the racism element that caused that, and now we see racism in the selection of the Zimbabwean team.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. On occasions, I have been told that the issue is purely about sport, but if one listens to the former captain of the Zimbabwean team, Mr. Streak, it is clear that there is much more to it. The sort of racist and discriminatory behaviour to which my hon. Friend refers has indeed occurred.

The greatest deficit is in the international response. I have to say that it has been lamentable. For a start, far greater pressure must be brought to bear on President Mbeki of South Africa. He must be told the bald truth that his policy of quiet diplomacy is dead and buried. What happened to his vain promise to President Bush last year that by June 2004 Zimbabwe's problems would be solved? The House will remember that promise. Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Aziz Pahad is on record as saying again last week:

"it is clear that we will not meet the June deadline".

He can say that again, because as far as we know no talks are taking place. Mr. Pahad continued:

"I have no other alternative to quiet diplomacy, so we will continue with quiet diplomacy."

The truth is that quiet diplomacy has failed and we should acknowledge that. There are those in South Africa who courageously speak out on the matter, including not least Archbishop Tutu and Opposition leader Tony Leon. We should listen closely to what they say and praise them for their courage in saying it.

I have been to New York and asked why the United Nations does not get involved. The response, I have to say, is pathetic. I am fobbed off with the answer that because the Zimbabwe crisis is an internal or domestic problem, the UN cannot get involved-tell that to some 127,000 Zimbabwean refugees are trying to get into Botswana each month. Is the UN blind to the refugees who flee over the border to Botswana, South Africa and Malawi, bringing economic havoc in their wake? And do the demolition of human rights, ethnic cleansing, or the suggestions of genocide by starvation not concern the UN? Why is it concerned about such problems in Darfur, but not in Zimbabwe? Come to think of it, the UN response has been to put both Zimbabwe and Sudan on the UN Commission for Human Rights. Is it surprising that the people of Zimbabwe feel betrayed?

Then there is the EU and its much-vaunted sanctions, about which we heard much today. In all honesty, I have watched those sanctions in action and they are pretty toothless. The red-carpet treatment that Mugabe received in Paris a year ago was a disgrace. People in Zimbabwe ask about that when we talk about the sanctions working. It was an example of how the EU sanctions are honoured more in the breach than in the observance. That visit totally undermined the credibility of EU sanctions both internationally, and in Zimbabwe. There is a strong suspicion in Zimbabwe that some European member states tacitly wish to support Mugabe. When there is a need comprehensively to strengthen the sanctions, we hear that there are voices in the EU that are arguing that they should be abandoned-so much for a common EU foreign policy.

The EU has a real chance of imposing real pressure on the Mugabe regime. When will it accept its moral responsibilities and act effectively? The sad reality is that by the time the EU sanctions come up for review next year-by which time, the Foreign Secretary tells us, he may have listened to further suggestions-Zimbabwe could well have become a failed state, with all the domestic and international implications of that. What defines a failed state? I shall give one definition:

"In general terms, a state fails when it is unable . . . to control its territory and guarantee the security of its citizens; to maintain the rule of law, promote human rights and provide effective governance; and to deliver public goods to its population (such as economic growth, education and healthcare)."

That is a good description of Zimbabwe today, but it is not my definition. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will recognise those words, because he used them in a speech in September 2002. I agree with that definition. He even offered a solution. He said:

"Experience suggests that the prevention of state failure depends on a scarce commodity: international political will. If we are to secure public and international support for action, we"-

I emphasise the word "we"-

"need to make the case for early engagement much more strongly."

I totally agree, so why have the Government failed to act decisively or even to take a firm lead? Why are they reluctant to lead from the front?

Tony Baldry: The international community is making every effort in Africa with the New Partnership for Africa's Development. That is a covenant under which we provide increased development aid in exchange for Africa doing certain things-not least providing peer group review and pressure. None of that has happened yet in relation to Zimbabwe. There comes a point at which we need to make it clear to colleagues in the Commonwealth in Africa that they have a responsibility and NEPAD cannot be a one-way programme in which we do our part and they do not reciprocate. International pressure on Zimbabwe has to start in Africa itself.

Mr. Ancram: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I have made the point on several occasions in debates on Zimbabwe that the question of peer assessment of good governance depends on the credibility of those making the assessment. If South Africa and other countries tell us that they believe that what is happening in Zimbabwe is not bad governance, I question the value of their assessments. NEPAD is meant to be a contract by which the G8 provide investment in Africa in return for good governance. I would like to see much more leadership from the G8 in reminding South Africa and other countries that if they wish to benefit from NEPAD it is their responsibility to ensure that good governance returns in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Wyatt: If we cannot achieve what we want through NEPAD-transparency and so on-would it be a solution to have a joint committee of the G8 and NEPAD, so that we could see what happened on the ground?

Mr. Ancram: That is a sensible idea. I shall set out in my concluding remarks some of the things that I think we should be doing and nothing that I shall say is inconsistent with that idea.

The UK appears to have hang-ups about taking a lead. Christopher Dell, the newly nominated next US ambassador to Zimbabwe, has no such hang-ups. He has experience in Kosovo, Mozambique and Angola. Last week, during his ambassadorial nomination hearing, he explained-and I say this with particular reference to what the Foreign Secretary said that I have said about Kosovo-

"In Kosovo, I witnessed first hand how misrule by one man and his regime in pursuit of narrow political advantage devastated the lives of millions of his citizens, both Albanian and Serb, and I'm proud to have helped in the effort to bring about Slobodan Milosevic's departure from power by democratic means."

Donald Anderson: By military intervention?

Mr. Ancram: By democratic means. I do now know where the right hon. Gentleman gets his definitions from, but that did not strike me as military intervention.

What Christopher Dell said is a clear message to Zimbabwe about America's position, which we would do well to emulate, instead of using the weasel words that we have heard again today.

David Winnick : Is it not most unlikely that, without the United States, any action could have been taken in Kosovo? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as a genuine friend of the new South Africa that has emerged from apartheid, I am deeply disappointed that it has not taken action. I speak as one who, with all my Labour colleagues, always wanted the destruction of apartheid. It is in South Africa's interests to act, and it is extremely disappointing that it has not done so.

Mr. Ancram: I agree. So much of what was achieved with the ending of apartheid, and in the 10 years since South Africa returned to democracy, is being undermined by the position that it is taking in relation to Zimbabwe. The legacy of Nelson Mandela, for whom I too have tremendous admiration, is being tarnished by the attitude now being taken to Zimbabwe.

What would we do? I have a five-point plan, which I believe should now be urgently considered and pursued. First-to return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was saying-we must, if necessary by invoking the benefits of good governance in return for NEPAD aid, persuade South Africa and the other Southern African Development Community countries to insist on the SADC norms for the elections in March 2005. We must be prepared to criticise South Africa's culpable inaction in the face of Mugabe's evil.

Secondly, the United Nations should join with SADC to produce free and fair parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe by supporting any SADC benchmarks that are developed to determine whether the process is credible. I want to see SADC and United Nations teams in Zimbabwe as soon as possible to observe the entire electoral process. United Nations personnel on the ground must be demonstratively effective in their monitoring of the elections and in their humanitarian advocacy. Mugabe must never again be allowed to select which countries can send observers.

Thirdly, pressure should be brought to bear, not only by the EU but by the United States, to repeal the Public Order and Security Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and amend the Electoral Act.

Fourthly, there is an increasingly urgent need for EU and US-targeted sanctions to be revised and strengthened, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said in an intervention, to include the family members and business associates of key ZANU-PF figures. Freezing the assets of those who bankroll Mugabe would have an immediate and dramatic effect.

Fifthly and finally, it is time the British Government tabled a resolution to send United Nations observers to Zimbabwe to monitor the fair distribution of food. This would at least internationalise the crisis. The Foreign Secretary argues, as he has in the past, that we would never get a resolution through the Security Council: perhaps not, at the first attempt-but he could then persist by, as he said, making the case for engagement more strongly, and shaming those who vote against such a resolution, until he succeeds. One thing is certain above all else: if he does not try, he will never succeed.

For too long Zimbabwe has been the crisis from which the world has averted its gaze. South Africa has murmured about quiet diplomacy on the one hand, and feted Mugabe on the other. The EU has imposed targeted sanctions, which have then been more honoured in the breach than the observance, and the British Government have wrung their hands and walked by on the other side. The time of walking by is over. Zimbabwe cries out for international action, and we should take the lead in making sure that it gets it.

Donald Anderson (Swansea, East) (Lab): The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a powerful speech. Certainly the description of the ills inflicted on Zimbabwe by its present leadership was powerful; much less powerful was the prescription. Each one of his five points can be examined and found to be vacuous or ineffective.

We have already said that there is no prospect of putting the subject on the agenda for the United Nations. There is the precedent of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, where the Africans work as a bloc and prevent any such move. As the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly said, that must harm the fulfilment of the New Partnership for Africa's Development contract and the region as a whole. South Africa is losing out massively, perhaps by as much as £1 billion, and up to 3 million refugees are crossing the Limpopo border. I am not saying that we should do nothing, but we should not pretend that we can do things that we cannot, or invest money and effort in ineffective action that may make us feel better, but will not help the people of Zimbabwe in any way.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of the United Nations, but is not what he has just said a savage indictment of the UN? Although it is so transparently obvious to the entire world that a whole country is being destroyed, the United Nations turns its gaze away and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, walks by on the other side? What does that say about the United Nations?

Donald Anderson: I agree.

Mr. Howarth: What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about it then?

Donald Anderson: We work within the multilateral framework and we try to persuade, as we have done already-but to pretend that the United Nations is likely to intervene is moonshine.

I shall now set out the involvement of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Zimbabwe. The conclusions that the all-party Committee, containing the three main parties in the House, reached were unanimous and we tried to be as realistic and powerful as we could.

First, I shall make a personal comment. I visited Zimbabwe several times in the 1980s. I helped form, and was vice-president of, AWEPAA, the Association of West European Parliamentarians for Action against Apartheid. I confess now that I was blinded-perhaps very few, apart from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), were not-in relation to actions such as those in Matabeleland. Perhaps we were dazzled by the hopes at that time. Zimbabwe seemed to be economically stable, was exporting food to its neighbours-now it has to use its scarce resources to import food from South Africa and Zambia-and there were high hopes of positive political development. My response to the Zimbabwe tragedy is anger at what has been inflicted on a cheerful and welcoming people, and frustration at what we in the international community have been able to do to confront that tragedy.

The Foreign Affairs Committee has maintained a close scrutiny of developments in Zimbabwe, and of UK policy, for several years. We have been involved in an ongoing inquiry since 2001 and have produced three reports in the current Parliament and taken evidence on a number of occasions. Whenever possible, we have met visiting Zimbabwean leaders-obviously, mainly opposition leaders. When we visited South Africa in February, we also considered the way in which that country could have a positive impact on Zimbabwe, and made several comments and recommendations to that end.

Our unanimous conclusions in our several reports include a condemnation in the strongest possible terms of the seizure of farms, the disregard for human rights and the corrupt elections. We have generally supported the actions of the UK Government in refusing to accept the results of the fraudulent 2002 elections, and in working within the Commonwealth, the UN and other multilateral agencies to put pressure on President Mugabe. We have urged the international community, and the UK in particular, to continue providing aid to the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe and to ensure, as far as possible, that it is not diverted for political ends, as will be the real danger with the parliamentary elections next spring.

Mr. Wyatt: I confess that I have not read all three reports-I shall get a smack on the hand for that. When my right hon. Friend was taking evidence, was he able to take confidential advice from MI6? Are there surveillance pictures and photographs that show that food is being diverted, and have we ever presented them in the public domain?

Donald Anderson: We did not. We had an ongoing debate with the Government on our access to intelligence, but I suspect that Zimbabwe is not one of the priorities for the intelligence agency.

In our report numbed HC813, we concluded that "Zimbabwe deserves better". On the EU and Zimbabwe, we unanimously said that President Chirac's invitation of President Mugabe to the conference in Paris the day after the EU sanctions expired was "deeply regrettable". We were highly critical of the hard negotiations over the renewal of sanctions in 2003 and said that the UK Government needed to be more robust with France. Fortunately, such horse-trading was not repeated during this year's sanction renewals.

On the Commonwealth and Zimbabwe, we said that our Government were right to call for the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. We said that Zimbabwe should not be readmitted to the Commonwealth

"without a very substantial and verifiable improvement in its human rights record and major steps to re-establish democracy".

On the future, we said that the United Kingdom Government must continue to act multilaterally with Zimbabwe through the United Nations and our African allies. We should not act unilaterally because of our colonial history and President Mugabe's ability to twist any actions that we might take and use them against us. We said that the United Kingdom must be ready to respond speedily to a change of regime in Harare and, of course, that we cannot assume that President Mugabe will carry on for ever.

We published a report on South Africa and Zimbabwe earlier this year. We said that our Government and the South African Government have not seen eye to eye on the issue for some time. They share the same ambition-a return to democracy in Zimbabwe and its respect for human rights-but the South African Government have pursued a policy of quiet diplomacy that has produced no proper results. They have refused to criticise President Mugabe and have even gone out of their way to support him, as we saw at the Commonwealth conference and from the strong letter that President Mbeki sent afterwards, which led to Zimbabwe's walk out from the Commonwealth.

Tony Baldry: The Foreign Affairs Committee said:

"We conclude that if Zimbabwe's neighbours were fully to assume their responsibilities-for example, by imposing targeted non-trade sanctions similar to those already imposed by the EU, by some Commonwealth countries and by the United States-Mugabe's regime would be further isolated, his opponents would be encouraged and his days would be numbered."

How does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that our Commonwealth colleagues and others might take a policy of non-trade sanctions by neighbours forward? He has not specifically mentioned that powerful recommendation in his speech.

Donald Anderson: It is clear that Zimbabwe's neighbours respond very differently. For example, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia has always acted as a cheerleader for President Mugabe. Indeed, alarming reports suggest that he might want to follow President Mugabe down the path of the expropriation of farms, which would not only damage Namibia, but have a deleterious effect on perceptions of southern Africa as a whole. Of course, the bravest of Zimbabwe's neighbours have been Botswana and Malawi, to an extent. However, there is no consensus among its neighbours on the use of effective pressure, despite the harm that is being done. The greatest pressure can come only from its neighbours.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: I have put this question to a Foreign Office Minister during Question Time. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that restricting or cutting off electricity supplies from South Africa to Zimbabwe might have an impact on Mr. Mugabe's Administration?

Donald Anderson: It is clear that South Africa and its parastatal are owed much money by Zimbabwe, which is heavily dependent on South Africa for its energy supplies. Turning off the electricity would cause chaos, and the danger for South Africa would be that even more refugees would stream over the border. Perhaps the most powerful argument made by the politicians and others in South Africa to whom we spoke was that we in Europe could be fairly sanguine about the situation, but that they had to live alongside Zimbabwe. If the country imploded further, it would have awful effects on South Africa's economy and the refugee stream, even though up to 3 million refugees from Zimbabwe have already crossed the Limpopo into South Africa.

We were given other reasons in South Africa for the country's continued support of, or failure to deal with, the regime in Zimbabwe. We were told about regional solidarity and that it was the practice of African leaders not to criticise each other. We heard about their shared history of fighting together in a struggle, although ZANU-PF was linked with the Pan Africanist Conference at first, and was not linked with the African National Congress until much later. We were told that, on land reform, Mugabe was seen as the only African leader actively trying to reverse the colonial legacy. We were told that the double standards of the west were tough on Mugabe, but not on such issues as third-world debt. Of course, we must also take note of the popularity of President Mugabe in the ANC. Additionally, we must consider the challenge to Mugabe from Morgan Tsvangirai, a trade union leader, and the possible implications for South Africa of a trade union leader from the Congress of South African Trade Unions challenging the South African Government. However, perhaps the most powerful argument is the domestic implications for South Africa of the implosion of Zimbabwe.

We were also told that South Africa's views might have been shaped by its experience at the end of apartheid when two implacably opposed sides were brought together in private negotiations to build a consensus. Some South Africans honestly believe that the same situation can be brought about in Zimbabwe. There are rumours of secret talks between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change being sponsored by the South African Government, but I know of no serious evidence for that. It is true that South Africa possesses many possible levers, but it is reluctant to use them because of the danger of the further collapse of Zimbabwe into anarchy. Additionally, we are told that the west overestimates the influence that South Africa has on Mugabe.

The Committee concluded that South Africa is

"acting in the manner it sincerely believes to be the most effective and the most likely to bring about"

change, and that it shares the same goal as the United Kingdom. We urged our Government to work closely with South Africa to achieve a solution for Zimbabwe. We returned with a greater understanding of the South African Government's policies, but we were unconvinced that our interlocutors fully appreciated the damage done by Zimbabwe's actions to perceptions of South Africa, the South African economy and the New Partnership for Africa's Development, which the hon. Member for Banbury mentioned.

The South African Development Community has played a disappointing role on the resolution of the situation in Zimbabwe. It has put no pressure whatsoever on President Mugabe to reform, and could play a more useful role. As has already been said, Zimbabwe's neighbours are not assuming their responsibilities or putting pressure on the country.

The 2003 session of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees saw South Africa co-ordinating an African group of members to block all debate on Zimbabwe. Such misplaced solidarity can only harm Africa as a whole, and it devalues the UNHCR.

The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes effectively chronicled the way in which the situation has deteriorated since we produced our report. There have been greater problems with the economy, government corruption, inflation and unemployment. Direct foreign investment in Zimbabwe has declined by 99 per cent. over the past three years. There is a chronic shortage of foreign exchange and last December, the International Monetary Fund initiated procedures for Zimbabwe's compulsory withdrawal from it.

The human cost is appalling. Life expectancy is 34 for men and 33 for women. Officially, about a third of the adult population is HIV-positive. President Mugabe has forecast a bumper harvest this year, but Mr. James Morris, director general of the World Food Programme, has expressed astonishment at that, saying that an increase from 980,000 tonnes to 2.8 million tonnes would be quite unprecedented. Obviously, the regime is not prepared to admit the crisis, as that would be an acceptance of the total failure of its agricultural policies. Political deterioration has already been mentioned, and there is a danger of the problem spreading to neighbouring countries including, worryingly, Namibia.

The image of Zimbabwe affects South Africa and the region as a whole. I have commented on the UN's role, and there is no serious prospect of the issue being taken up by the Security Council. To argue otherwise would be misleading. The Select Committee urges the Government to work closely with South Africa to achieve a solution, and we are pleased that the Prime Minister has made Africa a key theme not only of our presidency of the European Union in the second half of next year but of our presidency of the G8. In conclusion, it is sometimes said that individuals cannot make a mark in today's societies, but southern Africa disproves that. On one side of the Limpopo, President Mugabe has control, on the other side, President Mandela was once in power. One exalted his people, the other debases his. The people of Zimbabwe, the region and, indeed, Africa as a whole are the losers.

Mr. Michael Moore (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), and I pay tribute to him and his colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee, as their reports are important to the House and always inform our debates.

In the past few years, we have debated Zimbabwe more than a dozen times in Westminster Hall, and we welcome the opportunity to put our views on the record in the main Chamber. Those debates and today's contributions have documented the terrible decline of a once wonderful country, which, we hope, will enjoy a return to good times. It is hard to comprehend that a country that could once feed itself and many others is suffering from desperate food shortages, but that does not make them any less serious. Some factors are beyond anyone's control, but the heaviest responsibility falls on Robert Mugabe and his henchmen, who have wrecked Zimbabwe's agriculture and undermined external efforts to alleviate the problem. Land reform, which was agreed on independence, has been undermined, and land grabs by state decree and violence have further wrecked the economy. The process has reached its logical conclusion with the announcement that all land will be nationalised and existing landowners must apply for leaseback arrangements.

All those tragedies play into a desperate economic situation. Zimbabwe has the unpleasant distinction of having the world's fastest shrinking economy. Unemployment is rampant, and on some estimates income per capita is less than $250 per annum. Inflation is astronomical, and it was ironic to hear Gideon Gono, on his recent visit to the United Kingdom, talk with pride about his intention to reduce it to below 200 per cent.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Gideon Gono. Why was that gentleman, who is closely associated with Mr. Mugabe, allowed to come to this country?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, to which I shall return in due course.

Mr. Gono and other members of the regime have taken it upon themselves to talk up the Zimbabwean economy, but opposition leaders argue that although statistics are rapidly outdated they always get worse. We need therefore not believe the reassurances of Mr. Mugabe and his team. The economy's underlying weakness is exacerbated by money laundering and corruption, and individuals' economic capability is horribly ruined by the spread of HIV/AIDS. UN experts estimate that a quarter to a third of adults are HIV-positive; 1.5 million people are infected, more than half of them women. In addition, it is estimated that the consequences affect as many as 165,000 children under 15.

Other African countries suffer from those terrible problems, but Zimbabwe's predicament is homemade, as state control and corruption are at the heart of the disasters facing the country. Where that strategy is not sufficient for the regime to retain control, every dictator's trick is used to limit freedoms and achieve ZANU-PF's aims, including undermining press freedom, which was highlighted by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), limiting the independence of the judiciary, and the many well documented attacks on the Opposition. In addition to legal and quasi-legal measures, the Government make wholesale use of the army and militias to do their dirty work. Amnesty International documented more than 1,000 cases of torture in its most recent human rights report, and drew particular attention to the horrendous practice of extra-judicial killings by the military.

Everything is geared towards the maintenance of power by President Robert Mugabe. Few believe that he won a free or fair election last time, and many rightly fear that he has already undermined the prospects for a proper parliamentary election next year. There are extremely worrying reports that in many constituencies voter registration was completed in the past few weeks, as the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes said. In many instances, registration took place on a single day following the publication of a newspaper notice. As has been said, Zimbabwean MPs themselves were unaware of what was going on.

It has been suggested that progress has been made with plans for a revision of electoral law. For example, there will be transparent ballot boxes to prevent them from being stuffed with votes. There will be local counts, and the ballot will take place on a single day, which ought to be an improvement on the national counts that took place over a number of days in which boxes mysteriously disappeared or materialised en route to the count. However, if we are tempted to view that as progress, we can divine Mugabe's true intentions from his decision to forbid the attendance of election observers from countries that are outside his circle of friends. That is part of a consistent undermining of democracy, further illustrated by the harassment of Opposition politicians and the politically motivated trials of the leader of the MDC.

As Zimbabwe has crumbled, the rest of the world has been powerless, and we must consider whether that is by choice or design. Like many others who have spoken this afternoon, I believe that the heaviest responsibility lies with the neighbouring states, particularly South Africa. It is clear that with the necessary will President Mbeki could influence the position in Zimbabwe. It is a complete mystery why he chooses not to do so. Whatever the source of his loyalty to Robert Mugabe, surely the suffering of the Zimbabwean people and the devastation in Zimbabwe should encourage him to act.

More broadly, the New Partnership for Africa's Development boasts of a peer review mechanism at the centre of its activities. All recent meetings of that group have failed to take on the instance of Zimbabwe. Likewise, the African Union, a welcome development for the whole of that continent, is to have a summit of its leaders in the next few days. From the draft agenda that the African Union is touting, it does not look as though the issue of Zimbabwe will be tackled.

Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that were a white regime in Zimbabwe inflicting on its people what is currently going on, there would certainly be far more action nationally and internationally to do something about it, but where blacks do that to other blacks, the world seems to lose interest? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a case of horrendous double standards?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Gentleman makes his point. We in Britain and in the west must be a wee bit cautious about preaching to others about double standards. I am trying to make a speech in a colour-blind way, if I may.

Beyond the regional players who ought to have an influence on Zimbabwe, the record has been extremely patchy. Perhaps the only small success has been in the Commonwealth, whose suspension of Zimbabwe led to great concern in that country and a great deal of hurt to the president himself. The fact that the suspension was maintained 12 months later was very welcome. The fact that Zimbabwe then chose to leave the Commonwealth shows the strength of the action that had been taken.

We have always supported the European Union's travel ban, arms embargo and the embargo on equipment that might be used for internal repression. We also believe that the assets freeze is an important feature of those sanctions. We support the fact that the sanctions were renewed in March this year, but what is the outcome of these measures so far? Precious little, it seems. I should be interested to hear from the Minister when he replies what assessment he and his colleagues have made of the effectiveness of the embargoes. If he could provide the information, the House would find it useful to know what assets, if any, have been frozen here in the United Kingdom.

The Foreign Secretary spoke, properly, about the extension of the travel ban, but we should not lose sight of the modesty of the numbers involved. The numbers affected have risen only slightly, from 79 to 95, which contrasts with New Zealand, which has a list of 133. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the list in New Zealand includes the name of Gideon Gono, who has such a central role in the Zimbabwean economy, yet was allowed to travel through the UK in the middle of June, attending events at the high commission or embassy, according to one's preference, in Birmingham and Oxford, quite apart from the Financial Times interview that I mentioned earlier.

The limitations of the existing travel ban are clear. We support the use of targeted sanctions but find it hard to believe that only 95 people in that country can be linked closely enough to the regime to be forbidden EU travel. Likewise, it surely makes a mockery of the system, such as it is, when the families of those already named are still free to travel to the UK, although I welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary said that his decision not to argue for the extension of the ban to children was a finely judged one. I hope he will listen to the concerns expressed in the House today.

The cricket tour is a source of proper concern. I shall make some brief points in passing. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not believe that any tour should go ahead to Zimbabwe in the current circumstances. Despite all the difficulties, we welcome the England and Wales Cricket Board's confirmation that players who, after reflection and as a matter of conscience, do not wish to travel because of the situation there will not be forced to do so. We also accept that the Government cannot and should not ban English and Welsh participation in the tour. That would set a dangerous precedent.

It is clear that the International Cricket Council must be engaged and challenged to rethink its rules on permissible grounds for cancelling cricket tours. That will not be easy, but given the cross-party consensus at least on this small aspect of the problem and on the unacceptability of the existing situation, there should be scope for a cross-party initiative and approach to the ICC on behalf of all the parties represented in the House.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may not know, but apparently the president of the ICC, Mr. Ehsan Mani, has said that England has promised to fulfil its tour this November in Zimbabwe. Has he any comment to make on that?

Mr. Moore: I am not sure that the announcement that the ECB will fulfil its tour changes much. Everyone in the House wishes that that tour would not go ahead, but our Government should not be in the business of banning tours and instructing sportsmen and women where they can pursue their sport.

Away from the cricket fields, the build-up to next year's elections in Zimbabwe places the onus on the international community to build and maintain the pressure on the Mugabe regime. The UK is in a key position, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Swansea, East. We have the imminent presidency of the G8 and will have the presidency of the EU in the period likely to follow the Zimbabwean elections. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has put his credibility on the line with the creation of the Africa Commission, which we have supported.

Recognising the primary responsibilities of the southern African countries, we should use those diplomatic opportunities next year to persuade them of their lead role in tackling Zimbabwe. Beyond that, we should not constantly fall hook, line and sinker for the post-colonial guilt trip. We should extend our targeted sanctions. Here I take issue with the Foreign Secretary. We believe that such is the scale of the problem represented by Zimbabwe that we should seek to force the pace in the United Nations. I accept that at present there is precious little prospect of getting a resolution through the Security Council, but we should not shrink from forcing the issue and revealing who is standing in our way. If we do not start, we cannot hope to succeed.

The issue of Zimbabwe remains one of the greatest foreign policy challenges facing this country and many others. It is hard to imagine the suffering of the people of Zimbabwe. We owe it to them to do everything possible to change the conditions in which they live.

Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), as we have spent many hours debating the subject in Westminster Hall over the past two years. I, too, welcome the opportunity to hold a debate on the Floor of the House.

I shall not go over the detail of what is happening in Zimbabwe. Many hon. Members have reported on that. We heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and others who have visited Zimbabwe. I visited the country about a year ago. We have seen that decline in Zimbabwe affecting every area of national life. I saw for myself the way in which it was affecting ordinary people. I also saw the black farm workers who had nowhere to live, not being fed by anyone, in complete despair, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. I saw how the medical care had collapsed, the massive unemployment and the rampant inflation. All of that stems from one single cause. It is all very well saying that there are many other related problems in Africa, but the single root of the chaos that we are seeing now in that country is the determination of Mugabe and the ruling ZANU-PF to cling on to power at any price. That is why the focus of today's debate has to be on the need for free and fair elections. Zimbabweans need and deserve the right to elect a Government of their own choice and to be able to vote out those who fail them.

How do we get those free and fair elections? We saw what happened in 2000 when the people courageously rejected Mugabe's proposed constitutional changes in the referendum. Having been an election observer myself in Angola, I am probably one of those whom Mugabe was referring to when he said last week at the summit of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of nations held in Mozambique, that he would not allow former imperialists to monitor forthcoming parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe.

For anyone concerned with human rights and democracy, that vow to bar election observers or to choose where they come from, is deeply disturbing, but it is predictable, and it is what we have all come to expect from him. Far more disturbing is that when he told the assembled leaders of the ACP nations, "We will invite all of you, but we will not allow erstwhile imperialists to come and judge our election," there was sustained applause.Mozambique's President Chissano told a news conference after the summit that Mugabe's message had elicited a lot of sympathy. Sadly-I am genuinely sad-that reaction is predictable from so many of the African leaders.

None of us should be under any illusions about the cunning and expertise of Robert Mugabe. He is certainly not a fool when it comes to manipulating world opinion or singing a tune that will please his audience. Members will perhaps know how different his promises and rhetoric are when he addresses an international audience in English compared with his pronouncements in Shona for his audiences in the rural areas of Zimbabwe that ZANU-PF has turned into no-go areas. There are no-go areas not only for the opposition MDC, but even for the humanitarian missions of the UN. We must say clearly today that we are dealing with one of the most ruthlessly callous regimes imaginable.

The Government of Zimbabwe have refused to co-operate with the UN crop assessment team, and, days after the officials went into the fields to begin to calculate the annual food harvest, ordered it to stop its work. The order blocked UN and EU preparations to provide the food aid that it is reckoned will be needed for more than 5 million people later in the year. The cancellation was ordered because another year of serious food shortages looms after the drastic fall in production caused by the Government's land seizures. I saw for myself the empty grain silos and fields, and the desolate workers.

Mugabe's Government did not want the UN team gathering figures that would show harvests falling far short of their massively inflated claims. The Agriculture Minister, Joseph Made, said that the UN team was in the country without his approval, although The Guardian reported having seen a letter dated 30 March from his own ministry inviting the UN World Food Programme officials to estimate the country's food aid needs. Three weeks ago, as has already been said, James Morris, the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, who is also head of the World Food Programme, had to call off a planned visit to Zimbabwe because neither Mugabe nor a single Government Minister was prepared to see him.

All that behaviour shows that there is only one answer to getting rid of Mugabe and solving the problems of Zimbabwe, and that is for the international community to act and to act decisively. My friend, Eliza Mudzuri, who many Members present have met when he was here recently and who was elected the executive mayor of Harare in 2002 by a massive majority, even in what were flawed elections, is visiting the United Nations in New York. One of the messages that he hopes to get across is that it is no good just saying that the people of Zimbabwe must find a solution to their own problems. His own removal from office shows that where the people of Zimbabwe make a democratic choice that threatens the regime, the democratic will of the people is simply overridden.

The solution to the Zimbabwe crisis now has to lie in a partnership between the people of Zimbabwe and the international community. Here again, I want to express my real anger at the way in which South Africa still takes the lead in blocking action on investigation into human rights by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. How much longer can the entire membership of the AU or the ACP nations be hoodwinked into falling in behind President Mbeki? The mood among the young activists inside Zimbabwe is growing more and more restive. They feel that the only way of making the international community take the crisis in Zimbabwe seriously is to resort to violence. The strength of the opposition in Zimbabwe and of civil society is that they have been peaceful. They have been battered and tortured, but they have been peaceful. Such violence among the people, particularly the younger elements, must be avoided at all costs.

After four years of failed promises and failed deadlines, it is no longer possible to see the South African Government as any sort of impartial broker of a solution to the crisis. We remember the weasel words resorted to by the South African observer mission that President Mbeki sent to monitor the presidential elections in 2002. From all it had seen, it was blatantly clear, as the observer mission's leader said, that he could not describe the elections as free and fair, but he managed to give the deeply flawed process his bosses' required seal of approval by claiming that they were legitimate. Legitimacy in this context, of course, is simply a legal nicety.

The MDC recently issued a document called "Restore", which sets out clearly its minimum standards for the restoration of genuine democratic elections in Zimbabwe. The principles are based on the South African Development Community's parliamentary forum election norms and standards. It is not asking for anything new or special; it is simply asking for what the SADC has agreed. In any normal country, no one would bat an eyelid at what it is demanding. But it is a tragedy that today, only months away from parliamentary elections, most Zimbabweans see them as an almost impossible dream. For all the fine words and communiqués of the ACP nations and the SADC, they show no signs of calling the Government of Zimbabwe to task on those very basic requirements.

Those requirements include measures such as restoring the rule of law, ending all political violence, disbanding the youth militias, ensuring that police and security forces are impartial and non-partisan in conducting their duties, and establishing an independent and impartial electoral dispute court to hear and swiftly resolve all election-related disputes. All the messages that have come from Mugabe in the last week are just a smokescreen; none of the changes is really about genuinely making a free and fair election possible.

The MDC's second demand is for a restoration of basic rights and freedoms; to revoke those aspects of the Public Order and Security Act that curtail the right of citizens to move, assemble and speak freely, measures that are even more severe than those that existed under Ian Smith. Often people ask why, if people in Zimbabwe feel so strongly, they are not out on the streets. But when they go out on the streets they are beaten and shot, and we do not hear about it because very few journalists there are allowed to report freely. Women in Zimbabwe have been leading a great struggle at the grass roots level in all sorts of ways to keep their families together. I and other Members have had the privilege of meeting Jenny Williams from an organisation called Women of Zimbabwe Arise. Over 70 of its members were arrested, detained and beaten up just because they went on a peaceful demonstration in Bulawayo. While such things are happening there is absolutely no chance of a free and fair election, and we need an independent electoral commission. We must restore public confidence in the electoral process. We have seen with the recent by-elections that it is almost impossible for the MDC to hold a proper campaign because the youth militia are sent in weeks before a by-election and people are not allowed to move about or do anything. I saw such practices myself in last year's council elections. In order to stop people submitting papers to allow them to stand in those elections, the town hall, as we would call it, was ring-fenced by ZANU-PF militia. No one could submit their papers, and the election was therefore declared a great victory for ZANU-PF. We must ensure that that situation changes.

All the non-state-controlled daily newspapers and broadcasts have been closed. Without a free press, it is almost impossible to hold a free and fair election. Even with election observers drawn from Westminster, which is unlikely, or Namibia, the opposition cannot win the election if the people of Zimbabwe are denied a forum in which to exchange ideas and read about what is happening in their country. Many hon. Members have campaigned on behalf of The Daily News, and its staff and journalists, many of whom have become our friends, our heroes. Its closure was a nail in the coffin of free speech for many Zimbabweans, and although many of the journalists were killed or tortured, the world did not hear about it.

Like other hon. Members, I want to mention cricket, which we, as a country, can do something about without rocking the boat or upsetting Mbeki. Cricket is close to my heart, because on 14 September the Zimbabwean cricket team may play at the Oval in Lambeth, which is home to many Zimbabweans, who will be out in their hundreds to protest if the match goes ahead-I do not want it to go ahead.

The extent to which cricket in Zimbabwe is used as a tool by the ZANU-PF regime has been misunderstood and underestimated. Mugabe's lackeys are trying to impose political control over team selection and other aspects of Zimbabwean cricket. It is clear that the policy is about the domination and elimination of all opposition to the Government-backed board, and the silencing of dissent is instrumental in that-people who are likely to protest about the regime do not get picked. Mugabe is the patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union; cricket teams are politically vetted; and the regime clearly sees the maintenance of sporting links with the outside world as an important seal of approval. There are few enough ways in which British people can show our solidarity with the majority of Zimbabweans, who loathe Mugabe and all he stands for. To welcome his politically selected team here, and to see ZCU officials, who collaborate with the oppressors, hobnobbing at the Oval is more than I can bear thinking about.

Ministers have the power to refuse or revoke visas, and such a simple step is the least we can do to show solidarity with the pro-democracy activists in Zimbabwe. The British high commission in Harare refuses visas to Zimbabweans every day. Recently, two journalists travelling as guests of British Airways were refused visas because it was felt that they might not return to Zimbabwe. Let us not hear any more nonsense that we cannot refuse visas. We can simply say, "We will not give you visas. You are not coming to play cricket in this country in the name of a dictator who has stolen an election."

Mr. Bellingham: Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be easy to add some of the henchmen who run the Zimbabwe cricket board on to the list of people against whom smart sanctions have already been applied?

Kate Hoey: One or two people in the ZCU should be subject to the same restrictions as the small number of people who are already on the list. I have no time for those who claim that such a move would play into Mugabe's hands and make the dispute one between Mugabe and Britain, because the current situation is a bilateral dispute between freedom and oppression.

Mr. Wyatt: Has my hon. Friend taken into account the journalist Mihir Bose, who was born in Bombay and is now domiciled in London? When he went to Zimbabwe to report on cricket, he was stopped and had to return to the UK. He says that that is categorical proof that the cricket team is a ZANU-PF instrument. It is no longer possible for our Government to sit on the fence.

Kate Hoey: I agree with my hon. Friend. Even if Mihir Bose did not possess the technical press card to cover that sporting event, journalists who arrive late can usually obtain such documents, but Mihir Bose was not given the slightest bit of support by the ZCU. When well-known cricket journalists arrive in any other country, they are helped and supported. The Mugabe regime was silly to take such action, because, until that point, Mihir Bose had said that the Zimbabwe cricket team should tour. When Mihir Bose returned from Zimbabwe, he made it clear that no one, particularly cricketers, should have any truck with the regime. I want an answer from the Minister on cricket, and it is not good enough to say, "We cannot do it." We stop people obtaining visas all the time, sometimes for spurious reasons, and I am sure that we can find a reason to stop visas in this case.

I shall address a point raised by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale. The Government cannot ban cricket and say, "You are not going to tour. We are taking your passports off you", but nobody has asked for that. We are asking the Government and the England and Wales Cricket Board to get together and clearly state, "We are not touring, and we are telling the International Cricket Council that we are not touring. We do not want Zimbabwean cricketers to come here." We should follow that simple, straightforward policy.

Many of my constituents are poor, and, through their taxes, they pay to feed millions of people in what was once the breadbasket of Africa. I am not surprised that some of them ask why they should pay for food aid to a country that uses force to prevent skilled farm workers from cultivating some of the most productive land in Africa. It should be a condition that all food aid we provide to Zimbabwe, directly or via the European Union, is distributed only by agencies operating entirely independently of the Zimbabwean Government. To those who say, "That means ordinary Zimbabweans will suffer", I say that ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering already. Zimbabweans would rather that the crisis were moved on, because it must come to an end. We are postponing a crisis by continuing to allow aid to go in while not making it clear that it should not be used for electioneering purposes and bribery.

As was mentioned earlier, more must be made of the link between development aid from this country and the stance on good governance and human rights of nations in the region. Inward investment to the region is never likely to pick up while sores such as the Zimbabwe crisis are allowed to fester. We must help African nations to take responsibility for what happens in Africa, and we will not get them to take responsibility while we continue to bail them out whenever a problem arises. The result is that development efforts supported by our aid programme are constantly undermined and Africa's long-term goal of self-sufficiency is compromised.

The New Partnership for Africa's Development foresaw a link between aid from the developed world and the delivery of good governance and human rights by African nations. We need to hold African nations to that not only as part of NEPAD, but simply as a basic precondition for providing aid. We need to spell out in no uncertain terms that applause for Mugabe's wild rants and expressions of solidarity with his regime will mean an end to support for development projects. A solid basis of democracy, free elections and free expression are the fundamental requirements for sustainable development, and there is no point in pouring in the aid. Unless there is support for those principles from the region, we are simply pouring our money down the drain and my constituents are paying for that. Even if they are not willing to embrace the higher moral principles at stake, surely straightforward self-interest in terms of aid, investment and economic stability should persuade the leaders of the SADC countries that Mugabe must be shunned.

An abiding memory of my visit to Zimbabwe is the feeling of fear and violence that has become a normal part of everyday life. As I heard someone say the other day, people ask what is wrong when the police do not beat them up. With torture and brutality having been meted out on such a scale, there is almost no need to use it any more; many of the people are already cowed into submission.

In March this year, I hosted a meeting here with other Members to present a report issued by the Zimbabwe Institute, which is based in South Africa and which found that 50 of the Movement for Democratic Change's 59 MPs and 28 of its parliamentary candidates had personally experienced human rights abuses in the past three years at the hands of the security services and supporters. That is just the tip of the iceberg. If an elected representative can be beaten up, tortured, disappeared or even killed, how can the ordinary person in the suburbs or rural areas believe that they can possibly stand up to this regime?

That is why for free and fair elections to take place there needs to be a clear undertaking that human rights will be guaranteed by the international community not only during an election campaign, but for a good six to nine months in advance, and for long afterwards. People are genuinely afraid that Mugabe and his henchmen will resort to violent reprisals even after they lose power. We need to plan for that now; otherwise there can be no hope of a lasting and peaceful transition to democracy and reconstruction in Zimbabwe.

Only yesterday, Zimbabwe's Parliament passed new detention laws. They are the most repressive in the country's history, yet Mugabe is dressing them up as part of his so-called campaign against corruption. The laws extend the amount of time prisoners can be detained under security legislation without an appearance in court from 48 hours to more than three weeks. Many hon. Members will have read the gruesome accounts of what can happen to people who are detained even for brief periods by the Zimbabwean police. These new measures do not bode well for the safety of opposition activists during the forthcoming election campaign.

I want to mention Gideon Gono, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Ministers made it clear that they felt powerless to prevent him from coming into the country because he was not on the EU list, which is designed to exclude those engaged in abuse of human rights. His role as private banker and provider of funds both for the regime and for the Mugabes' private shopping trips is now well known, but Ministers may not be aware of his involvement in the victimisation of students at the university of Zimbabwe. Student activists have been at the forefront of the struggle for human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe, and they have long borne the brunt of the brutality handed out by state security agents. Security guards at the university of Zimbabwe are better paid than the police. Many graduate upwards from the ranks of the police and can be every bit as brutal as the special units that specialise in repression. As chairman of the university council, Gideon Gono was complicit in the banning of students who dared to raise their voices against the repression of the state and their violent treatment by the university security guards. Given Mr. Gono's record in the abuse of human rights and freedom of expression at the university of Zimbabwe, I appeal to the Minister to give an undertaking that next time he applies for a visa to come here on a fundraising trip for the Zimbabwe regime his request will be turned down.

Like the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes, what struck me most about the people I met in Zimbabwe-members of civil society, torture victims, displaced farm workers, white farmers, and many others, including Morgan Tsvangirai-was that when they discovered who I was and where I had come from, they said over and over again, "Don't let people forget us, and please tell people how it is." This is what is happening, and we need to do more.

Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who has taken a courageous and principled stand on the issue of Zimbabwe over many years. She put her life in danger by going there a year ago to find out for herself precisely what the situation is.

As many hon. Members know, I have taken a deep interest in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and Rhodesia over very many years-in fact, for all the 33 years in which I have sat in the House of Commons. I say quite openly that I have a dream, to use the words of Martin Luther King. I am determined to see a democratic and peaceful Zimbabwe in the central part of central southern Africa. I want to see peace, stability and prosperity restored to the people of Zimbabwe. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) in his place, as he chairs the all-party group on Zimbabwe with great distinction and puts a huge effort into the meetings and into obtaining people who have a positive contribution to make to the subject of Zimbabwe.

Interestingly, in 1979 I visited Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, as it was then, as a guest of the interim Government of Bishop Muzorewa. While I was there, Bishop Muzorewa and his Government team-including the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia, the Honourable Ian Douglas Smith; General Walls and his team of Ministers; and Mr. Sithole, Joshua Nkomo, Robert Mugabe and Chief Chirau-flew to the United Kingdom to take part in the Lancaster house talks. My visit was to look at the progress that was being made in education and health provision for the whole population, and to look at the way in which development was taking place to provide better farming and agriculture for all the people of the country.

As has been said by many hon. Members, huge progress was being made at that time, and it continued for a few years. Tremendous progress was made in reform of and investment in education, health, infrastructure and housing. That set Zimbabwe-Rhodesia-now Zimbabwe-apart from many other countries. It was prosperous; many people know that it was the bread basket of central and southern Africa, supplying food to many surrounding countries.

Perhaps, however, it would be appropriate to come up to date. On 25 June, in the Cape Times, a South African newspaper, Basildon Peta reported from Johannesburg:

"In an unprecedented move, dozens of the ruling ZANU-PF Members of Parliament walked out of Parliament (Harare) in protest against a bill that empowers police to detain corruption suspects for up to a month"-

the hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to that-

"without trial. Opposition Movement for Democratic Change MPs remained in their seats.

This effectively thwarted plans to bulldoze the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Amendment Bill through Parliament.

ZANU-PF normally rubber-stamp Robert Mugabe's proposed legislation. ZANU-PF MPs fear that if they allow the regulations to become permanent law, many would be targeted as Mugabe seeks to win the hearts and minds of the urban electorate through his much-vaunted anti-corruption crusade."

That shows not only the deep problems that the ordinary people and Opposition Members in that country encounter but the concern that Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party feels.

Meanwhile, as some hon. Members know, Mr. Roy Bennett, the popular Member of Parliament for Chimanimani, dared to raise in Parliament the brutal military seizure of his prosperous farm, Charleswood, in spite of several court orders upholding his ownership of the farm. His employees-hundreds of black Zimbabweans-were driven out through violence, rape and torture. After prolonged, repeated and sustained taunts and provocation by Government Members of Parliament, he cracked, lost his cool and pushed one of his persecutors. That is precisely what Government Members of Parliament and others wanted. Mr. Bennett has been pursued by a country-wide hue and cry to drive him out of his country-Zimbabwe-completely. A mob of some 3,000 howled for his blood through Harare, roughing up white Zimbabweans on its way to wrecking the headquarters of the Opposition party in the capital.

As previous speakers have said, 90 per cent. of Opposition Members of Parliament and officials have reported harassment, torture and burning of homes. Helen Anderson, whom some of us know, has published accounts of the ravages and tortures that Mugabe's so-called green bombers inflicted. Last month, the Zimbabwe Government closed a third independent newspaper-The Tribune-and they control almost all the printed and electronic media. They already vet telephone conversations.

As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey knows, the Zimbabwean Government are now legislating to control internet communication and thus suppress all criticism that may go beyond its tightly controlled borders. The extent to which internet control is technologically practicable is questionable, but it spreads fear and stifles communication. People in Zimbabwe think twice before writing freely to friends who remain in the country lest they endanger friends and relatives who may be suspected or accused of having contacts in the supposedly hostile western world.

As some of us know, the huge Kondozi farm at Odzi, on which thousands-I mean thousands-in Manicaland depend for their livelihoods, has also been seized. Apparently, the Minister for Agriculture coveted the income of the farm, which sold produce to supermarkets in South Africa, Europe and the United Kingdom. Its seizure left thousands of employees destitute in the winter bush without food or shelter.

I regret to say that commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe is at a turning point. Of the 4,500 commercial farmers who were on the land in 2000, pro