---

Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most   Gracious Speech

My Lords, I must begin by apologising for my absence from the opening speeches. It was impossible to leave a meeting near Winchester, which has been in my diary for nearly a year, without attending the first hour of it from nine o’clock. I am very sorry that I was not present from the start of the debate. I had intended to begin with comments on the situation in Israel/Palestine, but we have heard at least six distinguished speeches on the subject. I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to the   line of thinking that we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lords, Lord   Alderdice, Lord Wright and Lord Hylton. However, before moving on, I must say with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Steinberg, that the people I know and spent six days among in Bethlehem, both Christians and Muslims, the wall looks like a wall—very solid and very high. The separation barrier looks like a separation barrier. The whole thing looks long-planned and permanent. It would be hard to persuade those who are imprisoned by it that it is anything else. I turn to my main point. I welcome the line in the gracious Speech which speaks of the Government’s intention to use the presidency of the G8 to make progress in tackling poverty in Africa. I want to congratulate those responsible—the Prime Minister and his colleagues and staff—for the report of the Commission for Africa. It is comprehensive, well-argued and distinguished, although it would have been a great help to all of us who want to use it had it contained an index. I hope that those responsible are thinking of providing one. It is difficult to use a report of that scale when there is no index. I was unable to be present on 14 March when there was a brief debate in your Lordships’ House on the publication of the report, but two comments in the debate seemed to be important. One was that from my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who asked what would be the mechanisms in government for pursuing the goals. As I read the report and prepared to speak today, I returned to that question. The other was a comment, with which I resonate strongly, from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who is in his place. He noted that the report contained little for states which have already failed or are failing. That is my sense too, as I come to it from the particular perspective of engagement with and concern for the Democratic Republic of Congo. I should declare an interest as president of the Congo Church Association and bishop of the only Church of England diocese privileged to be in a partner relationship with the Anglican Church in the Congo. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one example, but there were a number of others. It may seem a trivial example but it is characteristic. On page 188, paragraph 32, appear the words:"““Health centres may be too far away, or have no staff””." My text has added in pencil, ““or have been destroyed””. There is a level of unreality in the report relating to the most difficult cases, the most chaotic states, the areas of Africa only small parts of which I know with any closeness, where the situation is utterly deplorable and disastrous. They look to remain so for the foreseeable future unless particular attention is paid to them. That said, I would be grateful to know the Government’s mind on three questions which I did not find adequately addressed in the report. They are questions around justice, the investigation of war crimes and an end to impunity. The report did not seem to address the question: how can still fragile or even ungoverned African states be encouraged and assisted to investigate serious human rights and criminal abuses perpetrated in recent years, often arguably by or under the aegis of those now in power; or participate in peace discussions or in transitional national governments? That is a critical question which urgently needs exploring. Secondly, the question must be pressed: what has been learnt for the future concerning best practice in the provision of UN and other external forces in the light of the experiences of recent years? What has been learnt of their provision, management, composition, mandate, equipment, logistical and interpreter support, training and so forth? What kinds of forces, from which countries, speaking which languages, are of most use in which circumstances? There is a range of object lessons to be learnt from the histories of MONUC in the Congo and from the short-term French force in north-eastern Congo in 2003, and I am sure from recent experience in Sierra Leone and Liberia and from the lack of such forces and the tiny   numbers, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in Darfur. The third question is a delicate one. It is obliquely referred to in the report where, in a rather coy short sentence on page 167, paragraph 56, it is noted,"““neighbours are often not impartial actors””." Is that not true of the Democratic Republic of Congo? But that raises the question: what are the responsibilities and opportunities of major donor states where recipients of their aid engage in military activity, whether at first hand or by proxy, in human rights abuses and/or in the exploitation and pillage of neighbouring countries? It seemed to me that that point was not approached in the report, and it is critical. A theme running through report after report on the enormous difficulties and distresses in the Great Lakes region is that there is an integral connection between the pillage of resources, the supply of arms and immense suffering of the people. This House needs to hear from the Minister, either now or on some future occasion, whether he is aware that the NGOs in this country, which look to the UK national contact point within the OECD processes as a means of bringing to account those suspected of improper economic activity in the DRC and similar places, find the UK contact point, in comparison with its EU equivalents, poorly staffed and unable or unwilling to take initiatives or to seek to make an independent assessment of the allegations made on a number of fronts, not least in the UN panel of experts’ report. Frankly, they find the contact point incompetent in the face of the powerful players with whom it is its business to deal. It seems to me that, although that is strictly a DTI question, it is also an FCO and a DfID question. Lastly, is the Minister aware that, in response to those of us who argue that Congolese asylum seekers should not be sent back to the Congo because it is vastly too dangerous a place to which to repatriate anyone, his colleagues in the Home Office make a great deal of play of FCO documents which it appears they have not read? I hope that he will find a way to have a conversation with his colleagues in the Home Office and draw their attention to information which they need to take note of and understand. It is a tiny part of the picture but we shall not find ways to help a country such as the Congo to come through to a fresh order—an order that it has never had—if we persist simply in sending back for the most part good people who will receive certain further ill treatment and perhaps death because of our anxieties about asylum seekers in this country.