| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, I remind the House of my family's farming interests.
The Minister must be concerned that, because of Defra's failure to keep correct figures, £50 million may be lost to wheat producers in the UK. Does he take that seriously and accept the remarks made by Steve Langton, who was in charge of the June census? He admitted that there was a need to review the methodology.
As the IACS payments are available to the Government in May, the actual amount of wheat grown is known. How are the mistakes made? Is the Minister concerned that many farmers who sold their wheat in advance have lost £5 a tonne? That is a large loss, when multiplied.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret the error. In using the IACS basis to augment the census basis, the mistake was made of mixing up holdings and businesses. It was a simple mistake, which had this effect.
I cannot accept the figure of £50 million that has been quoted—the noble Baroness quoted it too—for the loss to farmers arising from the mistake. When the initial figures were announced, it had virtually no discernible effect on the market price, which rose steadily before and after that date until the revised figures were produced. Although there was a momentary rise after the revised figures, it has since come down again by significantly more than half, and things are more or less on trend. I do not think that the accurate figure is anything like £50 million.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I declare an interest as an arable farmer who is incensed at Defra's bungling. Bearing in mind that wheat prices went up only £5 per tonne, does the Minister think it justifiable that milling prices are reported to have gone up from £25 to £34 per tonne? Does he think that that is being fairly passed to the consumer by the millers?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, wheat prices, in total, have gone up dramatically this year, largely due to the poor harvest in Europe. They have increased in both the feed and the milling markets. Largely, the benefit has gone to arable farmers. The issue that we are discussing now has had little effect on that. As regards the price benefit being passed on to consumers, clearly, the price that millers pay for the wheat means that consumers pay a higher price.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister know how much the price of a loaf of bread has risen this year on average?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give an average price increase. The price of wheat has almost doubled; the price of bread has nothing like doubled. Principally, that is because most bread is sold in supermarkets where, often, it is a loss leader. Therefore, the full price increase has not been passed on to consumers, but some of it has been passed on. If there are more accurate figures, I shall supply them to the noble Baroness.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I declare an interest as a dairy farmer. We all take seriously the use of price-sensitive information on share prices in the City. Bearing in mind how the market has reacted to the information, can my noble friend clarify what
procedures exist to detect and guard against the misuse of price-sensitive information from government agricultural statistics?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that was an error. There is no case of which I am aware where price-sensitive statistics have been leaked from the department before their normal issue. Frequently, the final figures are different from the initial figures. In this case, the error was not discovered until after the normal date of final figures.
My point to the noble Baroness was that this had a minimal effect on the price. Effectively, we are price takers in this country. The difference in production is likely to be about half a million tonnes in a world market of 580 million tonnes. Therefore, it is unlikely to have had a dramatic sustained effect on prices, although, momentarily, there was the increase in the UK price—to which the noble Baroness referred—but that rapidly returned to trend.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that he thought that the price had not gone up, but he was not too certain of the figures. Is he aware—I think that I am correct—that for every £1 spent on a loaf of bread, eight pence is accruable to wheat? Therefore, it is unsurprising that the increased cost of wheat has not affected the price of a loaf of bread.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my figures are not quite as low as that. Nevertheless, the noble Earl is correct: only a small part of the total price of a loaf of bread goes to the farmer.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real difficulty is in trying to establish why the mistakes occurred in the first place? I have been informed—as have others—that it was largely due to a lack of resources. If that is the case, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that necessary funds will be made available to ensure that that kind of mistake does not occur again?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly, the lessons need to be learnt by the department; in particular, the manner in which we conducted the census and used material that originated for another purpose—the IACS purpose—in the census. However, the mistake cannot be put down to lack of resources. It was a clear and systematic error in using IACS information and mistaking the definition of holding for the definition of business. It was extremely unfortunate, but it cannot be put down to resources.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, would the Minister agree that much of the problem stems from the fact that all the forms are incredibly complicated? Having slaved over them for several nights with my poor wife, who is the farmer, I can attest to that fact. Perhaps the whole thing could be simplified, particularly as the department has access to digital maps but the farmer does not. Perhaps there could be more help in this area.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in effect, part of this problem arose through trying to use information
supplied just once by the farmer for other purposes and, therefore, to relieve the burden on the farmer. I am well aware of the complexity of many of the forms that farmers fill in and the frequency with which they have to do it. That is why the department is in the process of developing whole-farm plans whereby information provided for one purpose can be used for other purposes. In that particular case, there was an error in transposing from one to the other. Ideally, we should be able to use the same information a number of times for several regulatory and information purposes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister feel encouraged that the forces of nature are far more influential on the lives of farmers and, indeed, on the lives of everyone than the forces of government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always happy to agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the forces of nature. Henceforth, I assume that we shall not have any interventions from him blaming either the British Government or European regulations for the plight of certain farmers. Both are important. Essentially, the changes in wheat prices this year are due to the climate, not to any of us.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, is it not correct that earlier in the season the Government offered UK wheat at discounted prices because the price was estimated on what they thought the yield would be? Although the Minister said that it did not have much effect, I urge him to think differently. It had a huge effect.
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. I do not think that it can have had a huge effect. Clearly, there is a surplus of wheat here and there is a market for that surplus. The surplus is somewhat less—by 500,000 tonnes—than it would otherwise have been. But it is not true that the price taken earlier in the season is affected by the error. The price earlier in the season was significantly lower than the price now and later in the season, immediately prior to the error being discovered and announced. I do not think that the noble Baroness is correct in that respect.
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Abuja
3.17 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
-
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which took place in Abuja, Nigeria, from 5th to 8th December. Copies of the communique and declaration have been placed in the Library of the House.
"Her Majesty The Queen attended the meeting in her role as head of the Commonwealth and also paid a state visit to Nigeria. She was warmly welcomed by the Nigerian people. The outgoing Commonwealth Chairman in Office, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia, paid tribute on behalf of all Commonwealth members to the Queen's dedication and commitment to the Commonwealth. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in echoing that tribute.
"Nigeria itself returned to the Commonwealth only in 1999, after a turbulent period of military rule. The Queen's visit, and the holding of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting there, underlines the progress made since then in rebuilding a democratic and prosperous Nigeria. Britain is committed to supporting the reform programme led by President Obasanjo, on whose chairmanship of the summit I gave sincere congratulations. In a difficult situation he managed matters with great skill.
"Commonwealth Heads of Government last met in Coolum, Australia, in March 2002. At Abuja, we reviewed developments since then. We agreed on the urgent need to relaunch the world trade talks which stalled at Cancun in September, and underlined our collective commitment to a successful Doha Development Round.
"That commitment is significant. The Commonwealth represents one-third of the world's population; developing and developed countries; large and small states; and agricultural, service and manufacturing-based economies. All have different perspectives and interests. The fact that all of us agreed on the need to relaunch the Doha Development Round, and on the need for all parties to show flexibility in the search for agreement, shows that a global deal is possible. Everyone will gain if the talks succeed, but the biggest winners will be the world's poor; and if the talks fail, they will be the biggest losers too.
"We discussed other development issues. Heads of Government agreed on the need to accelerate progress to meet the millennium development goals, which aim to halve the proportion of people living in poverty by 2015. I reaffirmed the UK's own strong commitment to that goal.
"Heads of Government also underlined their concern at the spread of HIV/AIDS. It now threatens not only Africa, but increasingly Asia and other parts of the world. Three million people will die of the virus this year alone. Two in three people infected live in Commonwealth countries. It poses one of the gravest threats to sustainable development.
"We agreed on the need to redouble our efforts to fight this threat. Britain is playing its full part, including through our own "Call for Action" on World AIDS Day, and we are now the second largest bilateral donor in the world on HIV/AIDS after the United States of America. Our bilateral aid
- amounted to more than £270 million in 2002–03 alone, a real demonstration of commitment on behalf of the people and Government of Britain.
"The last Commonwealth summit was postponed following the terrorist attacks of 11th September 2001. Since then the terrorists have continued their indiscriminate campaign. We agreed in Abuja that terrorism threatens everyone, regardless of nationality or faith; and that all Commonwealth members would stand together to meet and defeat this challenge.
"The meeting considered the situation in the two countries that have been suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth: Pakistan and Zimbabwe. On Pakistan, Heads of Government welcomed the progress made back towards democratic governance. They expressed the hope that the Pakistan Parliament would soon pass the necessary measures to allow the lifting of Pakistan's suspension.
"Where Pakistan has moved forward since Commonwealth leaders last met, Zimbabwe has gone backwards. The country was suspended from the Commonwealth in March 2002, shortly after elections, which the Commonwealth's own observers concluded were neither free nor fair.
"Since then there has been more violence and intimidation against the opposition MDC; against lawyers and human rights activists; indeed, against anyone speaking up against President Mugabe's oppressive policies. Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, the Daily News, has been closed down, despite court orders in its favour.
"Meanwhile, ZANU-PF's ruinous economic policies are driving the country further and further into chaos. Inflation is more than 500 per cent. Zimbabwe's GDP has halved in five years. The IMF decided last week to begin procedures to expel Zimbabwe due to its appalling economic policies. Half of the population now needs food aid. Britain remains the leading cash donor for the UN's humanitarian programmes in Zimbabwe. Over the past two years, we have given 100 million dollars in food aid.
"In those circumstances, I and others argue that it was inconceivable that Zimbabwe should be readmitted to the councils of the Commonwealth and that, on the contrary, it should remain suspended until we saw concrete evidence of a return to democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law—the very principles on which the Commonwealth was founded.
"I am glad to say that this approach was agreed. It was decided that Zimbabwe should indeed remain suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth; that President Obasanjo as Chairman in Office, together with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, will seek to facilitate progress inside Zimbabwe; and that if sufficient progress is made on the issues of concern he will report, via a representative group of six Commonwealth members, to Heads of Government. Heads will revisit the issue in the light of that report, and take any decision on the lifting of the suspension by consensus.
"This is the outcome we wanted. It is also the outcome that President Mugabe worked assiduously to avoid. It gives the lie to one of his most outrageous claims—that the Commonwealth's approach to Zimbabwe is a white conspiracy led by the UK against black Africans. The fact is that every single Commonwealth member signed up to the Abuja statement on Zimbabwe—including the other 19 African members of the Commonwealth, despite the strongly held doubts of some of those countries. Nor did any African member of the Commonwealth take up Mr Mugabe's invitation to boycott the summit meeting. The outcome in Abuja was hard fought, but in the end was a victory for Commonwealth values.
"Mr Mugabe's reaction—to withdraw Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth—shows clearly that he does not accept Commonwealth principles. It was a decision taken without regard for the wishes or well-being of the Zimbabwean people. ZANU-PF's isolation will be increased. But the strong bonds that exist between the Zimbabwean people and the rest of the Commonwealth remain. There will always be a place for a democratic Zimbabwe in the Commonwealth.
"The summit also re-elected the present Commonwealth Secretary-General, Don McKinnon, for a second and final four-year term. We welcome that outcome. The Secretary-General has done an excellent job in his first term. He will continue to have our full support in his second.
"Finally, I participated at the Commonwealth sports breakfast. We looked back to Manchester's successful hosting of the last Commonwealth Games in 2002, and forward to the next in Melbourne in 2006. I highlighted the UK's future sporting priorities.
"At this Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, a group of more than 50 countries came together to discuss the issues that matter most to their peoples—prosperity, security, sustainable development, the fight against terror—and agreed a common approach on all, in the interests of all.
"They discussed more controversial issues such as Zimbabwe, where it is no secret that there were and remain a range of differing views among member states. But here, too, through serious discussion and debate, the Commonwealth was able to reach a consensus on the way forward. I commend the outcome to the House".
3.26 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to reaffirm the powerful support that Members on these Benches have always given and will continue to give to the Commonwealth. It is a unique international organisation, bringing together nations of all continents, of all creeds and races, united—most of them, at least—by the values that we in this House
stand for: a hatred of tyranny and racism, and a common commitment to freedom, equality for all, democracy and the rule of law.I was interested to see that the conference also underlined the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary, so I hope very much that the noble Baroness will take this opportunity to send a copy of paragraph 8 of the communique to her noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, whose plans have aroused such widespread fears for judicial independence.
In the communique and in the Prime Minister's Statement, there were strong signals pointing to lifting the suspension of Pakistan from the Commonwealth. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what obstacles, if any, she sees to what would be a welcome return by Pakistan?
Perhaps I may welcome something that was not mentioned in the Statement: the support for the United Nations programme of action on the illicit trade in small arms. Can the noble Baroness explain what review mechanism the Government have put in place to monitor compliance?
Perhaps I may also welcome the depth and clarity of the Commonwealth condemnation of terrorism. I am sure that the noble Baroness will join us in expressing her conviction of the quality of the international leadership of President Bush, Prime Minister Howard and, of course, her right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on this issue.
The Statement did not report to the House the concerns expressed by some countries, and reflected in paragraph 35 of the communique, about travel advisories. Will the noble Baroness give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Government never have been and never will be deflected by diplomatic niceties from issuing advice for the protection of British citizens?
We agree that much more needs to be done on multi-lateral trade to help to relieve the poverty of too many Commonwealth members, and to push forward the Doha development round. Is not the noble Baroness, as I am, dismayed by the wretched record of the protectionist European Union in this respect? Does this not underline the scale of the failure of our efforts at Cancun? Why are the Government not doing far more to secure a lowering of the EU tariffs that hurt small and poor countries?
I also welcome the commitment to combating corruption, something that has impoverished too many nations in the past. Can the noble Baroness tell the House how many Commonwealth countries have so far signed and ratified the UN convention against corruption?
I also note that the 2007 Heads of Government meeting will take place in Uganda. Are the Government satisfied that the Ugandan Government fulfil all the terms of the Harare declaration?
Can the Minister explain to the House the basis of the opposition from some countries to the re-election of Secretary-General McKinnon?
We welcome the strong and realistic statement on the tragic and appalling scourge represented by the spread of HIV/AIDS. Are the Government aware that we on this side support strongly action taken by the Government to support effective action against AIDS in Commonwealth countries and outside?
Finally, I turn to the question of Zimbabwe, which under Mugabe has become a ghastly scar on the face of Africa. In March 2002, the noble Baroness told the House that,
- "the decision that was taken not to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth undermines the credibility of the Commonwealth".—[Official Report, 19/3/02; col. 1231.]
Before the recent promotion of the Leader of the House, she managed this country's policy towards Zimbabwe. Time and again, she stood at the Dispatch Box and told the House that she was talking with international colleagues about possible action, insisting that quiet diplomacy would solve the problem. In the past two years, I have heard more than 30 Starred Questions on Zimbabwe. This House has not been backward in showing its concern in calling for more determined and effective action from her Government. On our Front Benches, my noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford, Lord Astor of Hever, and Lady Rawlings, and, on our Back Benches, my noble friends Lord Blaker and Lady Park of Monmouth, and many others around the House, have been tireless in their efforts to persuade the noble Baroness to take firmer, faster and crisper action against the Mugabe regime.
For all the fine words in the Prime Minister's Statement today, there is an abiding sense that too little was done too late. The result of the policy that has been pursued, which showed too much tolerance to Mugabe until his predictable crimes turned into predictable reality, is that today in Zimbabwe there is more violence, murder, insecurity, starvation, corruption and tyranny than even three years ago. The British Government's policy of moving only at the slowest rate allowed by international organisations has been a failure.
Many noble Lords will find it baffling for some Commonwealth leaders, even now, to be calling for constructive engagement with Mugabe. Can the noble Baroness tell them, in the light of the failure of the policy of weakening Mugabe, that this is the last time to be softening the stance against him? Appeasement of dictators has never succeeded, and it will not do so now. I hope that the noble Baroness will at least agree with that.
3.33 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. We on these Benches strongly agree that the Commonwealth is a unique and important association. In that context, it is of course troubling that the staff of the Commonwealth Secretariat has dropped by nearly a third in the past 20 years and that the amount of money available to the Commonwealth to use for aid has also dropped significantly. Today it is only about £20 million, which means that the association lacks the clout that it had perhaps a generation ago. That may be a tragedy, because it is one of the very few associations of developed and developing countries in the world.
I echo what the noble Baroness said about the significant role of the President of Nigeria, who deserves considerable praise for the way in which he handled a very difficult Commonwealth Heads of Government conference, and the whole of the Zimbabwe question. It is important that he has emerged as one of the figures in Africa most willing to stand up for democracy and the rule of law in a country where that is not easy to do. In that context, can the noble Baroness tell us anything about the continual request from the Nigerian Government for co-operation from the British Government in the pursuit of money laundered out of Nigeria, which amounts to many billions of dollars? The Nigerian Government have repeatedly said that they are not getting the co-operation that they believe that they deserve from our country. That seems to go against the claim of Commonwealth co-operation that was made so strongly in the Statement.
I agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition that the position of western countries on Doha is absolutely central. He mentioned the EU, and we would certainly not defend the common agricultural policy; but he could also have mentioned the recent very substantial increase in agricultural subsidies by the United States. The western world must recognise that it bears a major responsibility for the imbalance of world trade and, in World Trade Association discussions, a very unfair measure of agricultural protection, which harms Africa and the developing countries above all. Until it does so, we are not in a very strong position to sing of the beauties of freer world trade, since we ourselves are very much part of the problem.
I turn briefly to three particular cases. First, can the noble Baroness tell us how much practical help the Commonwealth Secretariat is now able to give on the AIDS problem in terms of health structures in the Commonwealth? As we all know, while the question of the provision of less expensive drugs is being addressed, that is only a small part of the problem. The solution depends heavily on the health structure of paramedics and others who can ensure that the drugs are properly used, without which money spent on drugs can to some extent be money down the drain.
Secondly, the noble Baroness mentioned that there was a probability or possibility that if Pakistan continues to extend democratic measures, which it has started by
holding local government elections, it might be welcomed back into the Commonwealth. Many of us would welcome that. However, is the Commonwealth assuring itself that measures are being taken to cease to train a substantial number of infiltrators and terrorists in Pakistan? I recognise that President Musharraf has limited powers in the tribal areas, but the country is a great source of major terrorism in the area, which has to be tackled sooner or later.Lastly, with regard to Zimbabwe, the leader of the Conservative Party was rather hard on the Leader of the House. There is a real problem with the solidarity felt among many African countries with a man who was at one time a hero of the liberation movement. We may regard that as foolish or sentimental, but it is a real fact of life. It carries with it too much solidarity, but the Leader of the House in her other capacity has had to deal with it. We should be realistic; it is questionable whether through the Commonwealth or the United Nations we could carry a majority of developing countries with regard to much tougher action against Zimbabwe.
I refer finally to one area in which we in the United Kingdom carry a substantial responsibility. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that those who are perceived to fight for democracy, freedom of expression and the rule of law—including Zimbabwe's judges, the brave editor of the Daily News and his staff and many other people who are active in trying to bring democracy to Zimbabwe—will cease to be deported back to Zimbabwe if they escape and seek asylum in this country? Is the noble Baroness assured that the Home Office is aware that that kind of deportation is contrary to the efforts that all of us want to see to bring Zimbabwe back to democracy?
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their welcoming of the Statement. I shall seek to address their points.
I am slightly surprised by the initial question asked by the noble Lord with respect to the independence of the judiciary. It seemed like a rather desperate attempt to bring in the debate that we are going to have in this House with respect to constitutional reform. The noble Lord is well aware that the Government remain committed to the independence of the judiciary. That has always been our position, and it has been the touchstone of the reforms that are proposed.
As for the other points raised by the noble Lord, the Commonwealth members welcomed the progress that has been made on Pakistan. In particular, they welcomed the holding of elections and the formation of national and provincial assemblies, and noted in particular the role of women and of minorities in the legislature. A timetable was not given for Pakistan's re-admittance to the Councils of the Commonwealth, but further progress in those areas and greater democratisation are required from Pakistan and Pakistan is clear about that.
On the illicit trade in small arms, the noble Lord may be aware that a conference in the UK looked at those issues. A mechanism has been put in place to ensure that there is international support on that issue, but if I am able to find any further information for the noble Lord, I will happily write to him.
The noble Lord will be aware that our travel advice is focused solely on the need to provide timely information to our citizens. That will continue to be the main aim of our travel advice.
On trade, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the failure of Cancun and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke about the disappointing progress on the trade agenda. Noble Lords will recall that we strove hard to reach agreement at Cancun and were disappointed not to be able to do so, particularly as we had thought that the reform of the common agricultural policy would be the basis for an agreement. We remain committed to the Doha development agenda. As noble Lords may recall, the European Union had dropped its commitment to two of the four new issues on the trade agenda. One important agreement to be reached at the Commonwealth meeting was that the Commonwealth would send a group of Ministers around key capitals to stress the importance for both developing and developed countries of an early resumption of the round. We will continue to work within the European Union and in the wider international community for improvements on trade. I entirely agree with the points that were made about the differentials in trade between the developed and the developing world.
I do not have an answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about corruption. If I can find a figure, I shall write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will know that concerns have been expressed about the need for Uganda to move swiftly to multi-party democracy. The United Kingdom will continue to press for that. The Secretary-General was re-elected by a majority at the meeting.
On Zimbabwe, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the outcome of the Commonwealth meeting was significant. There were clear differences of opinion, but the noble Lord is well aware that the Commonwealth works ultimately by consensus. That means that all countries signed up to the declaration and to the communique, which is important for the values and principles that underlie the Commonwealth.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that Zimbabwe is viewed in very different ways by some countries in Africa. The role that Robert Mugabe played in the independence movement stirs emotions, as does the issue of land reform in Zimbabwe. Many Africans feel that the United Kingdom paid no attention to historical injustices and woke up to the issue only recently, when a black government came into power. We have taken strong action. We were the first country to put an arms embargo in place. We worked hard for EU sanctions; we worked hard for Zimbabwe's suspension from the Commonwealth last year. I do not agree with the noble Lord that we
showed tolerance to Zimbabwe. It is significant that the United Kingdom has been singled out by Robert Mugabe for vilification. Our High Commissioner and his staff in Harare have had to put up with a great deal of abuse. The noble Lord will know that all members of the British Government are banned from going to Zimbabwe, so I do not accept the noble Lord's point on that. Nor do I agree that our policy has been one of appeasement. I have asked noble Lords opposite on many occasions from this Dispatch Box what they suggest that we should do that we have not done. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, wrote to me on that point and I answered every point that he raised.The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that President Obasanjo deserves praise. I agree with that. It has undoubtedly been a difficult CHOGM and he handled the meeting with considerable skill and sensitivity.
We have tried to do all we can to assist the Nigerian Government's pursuit of money launderers. I know that from my own meetings with the president this year, but he has also discussed the issue with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Officials have discussed ways of taking the matter forward. The issue is a great deal more complex than it appears. That became clear when our officials began their talks earlier this year. However, there has been constant contact between them.
On support for health structures, particularly in relation to HIV/AIDS, the Commonwealth is able to offer technical assistance and to share people and expertise. Through its bilateral development assistance programmes, the UK is able to help countries strengthen their fragile health systems. We have paid particular attention to that matter, because there is no point in putting money into drugs if the health systems are not in place.
The issue of terrorism remains very important for Commonwealth members. It was agreed that the Commonwealth would continue to give countries greater support, particularly smaller countries that do not have the resources and expertise to put anti-terrorist measures in place. In response to the noble Baroness's question about Zimbabwe and deportations, I shall write to her so that I can give her the latest information.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page