Zimbabwe: Elections

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of (1) state sanctioned political violence, (2) voter roll irregularities, and (3) the intimidation of voters, ahead of the 26 March parliamentary and local by-elections in Zimbabwe.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I initiate this debate on the recent by-elections acutely aware that Britain’s history in Zimbabwe, from the first days of Cecil Rhodes’ chartered company to the last days of Ian Smith’s white supremacist regime, is a deeply troubled one. Throughout that time, political dissent was violently supressed, political leaders were imprisoned, tortured and murdered and elections of any sort, let alone free and fair elections, were denied to the majority of the people of Zimbabwe.

Given that history, for most of the years since I taught in a secondary school in rural Zimbabwe in 1988 I have been reticent about public criticism of the Zimbabwe Government. I saw in the early years of Zimbabwe’s independence how apartheid South Africa sought to destabilise and undermine it. I witnessed the heroic efforts by the people and Government of Zimbabwe to build a better future for the country, opening schools and clinics and seeking reconciliation with their previous oppressors, and I experienced amazing kindness and friendship from the rural community in which I lived and worked in eastern Zimbabwe which, just a few years previously, had had to bear the vicious onslaught of the Rhodesian security forces.

I come to this debate bearing all those things in mind and recognising fully that it is for Zimbabweans to decide how they wish to constitute their democracy and who they wish to govern them. That is not the business of anyone else, least of all the former colonial power. Nevertheless, we can and should support Zimbabweans in the choice they collectively made in March 2013 when, following an outreach programme across Zimbabwe, a new constitution was drafted by the then Government of National Unity and put to the people in a nationwide referendum. Over 94% of voters backed the constitution, providing absolute clarity about how the Zimbabwean people wish to be governed and how they expect elections to be conducted. Sadly, since its adoption, that constitution has mostly been honoured in the breach.

A military coup in 2017 was followed by flawed elections in 2018 and subsequently a wholesale attempt to destroy the main opposition party, which ultimately culminated in the parliamentary and local by-elections which took place across Zimbabwe on 26 March this year. In those elections, the main opposition party was denied the right even to use its own name in these elections or to access the public funds it was entitled to. In response its leader, advocate Nelson Chamisa, announced the formation of a new political movement called the Citizens Coalition for Change, or CCC. That party won 19 of the 28 parliamentary seats up for election and hundreds of councillors, despite its formation just two months before the polls, its lack of funds, and widespread intimidation and obstruction of its campaign by the state. By contrast, ZANU-PF’s puppet opposition faction, which had been gifted approximately $1.5 million in campaign funds by the state, won precisely none.

Nevertheless, despite the relative success of the Opposition, the provisions of the 2013 constitution were serially violated throughout the elections, raising grave concerns about the conduct of next year’s general election. State media outlets were brazenly used to denigrate opposition candidates in contravention of Section 61 of the Zimbabwe constitution requiring such outlets to “be impartial” and to

“afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions.”

The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission failed in its duty to provide for the

“proper custody and maintenance of voters’ rolls”

or to ensure that elections were conducted

“efficiently, freely, fairly and transparently and in accordance with the law”,

as required by Section 239 of the constitution.

Multiple irregularities in the voters’ rolls were documented by civil society organisations, including: changes to addresses and voters deleted from the rolls without ZEC giving notice of such changes, in contravention of the Electoral Act; changes made to 156 polling stations, without informing voters; and voters transferred to other wards or constituencies despite their addresses remaining the same, implying that boundaries had been altered without due process and contrary to law.

The security situation was extremely troubled throughout the campaign. Throughout the election, the Zimbabwe Republic Police did ZANU-PF’s bidding and in doing so violated multiple clauses of the 2013 constitution, including Section 50 on the rights of arrested and detained persons, Section 53 on freedom from torture or degrading treatment or punishment and Section 58 on freedom of assembly and association. Police repeatedly obstructed the opposition leader’s rallies. On 20 February, they mounted roadblocks to harass and intimidate supporters attempting to reach the CCC’s rally in Harare. On 12 March they banned the CCC’s rally in Marondera and deployed riot police and water cannons to prevent the event taking place. On 24 March, they banned a final campaign rally at Epworth citing lack of manpower. Needless to say, no ZANU-PF rallies were banned. On the contrary, public resources were frequently misused to support ZANU-PF. In contravention of the constitution, public and school buses were regularly commandeered to transport party supporters, and schoolchildren were forced to attend rallies during school time.

Widespread violence and intimidation against opposition campaigners was perpetrated by ZANU-PF supporters across the country, violating Section 67 of the constitution guaranteeing the right to campaign freely and peacefully for a political party or cause. For example: on 2 March a CCC member was severely assaulted in Marondera after putting up opposition campaign posters; on 3 March the home of former MDC Finance Minister, Tendai Biti was attacked by men armed with machetes and his security guard was seriously injured; on 5 March the house of an opposition council candidate was set on fire in Bindura after he had hosted an opposition meeting at the house earlier that day; and on 8 March, Maxwell Dutuma, an opposition council candidate, and a party colleague were attacked by ZANU-PF supporters in Highfields. Both were injured, his colleague very seriously. When Maxwell Dutuma reported the assault to police he was arrested. Most egregiously, on Saturday 26 February, Vice-President Chiwenga openly incited violence against the opposition at a rally in Kwekwe saying:

“You see how we crush lice with a stone. You put it on a flat stone and then flatten it to the extent that even flies will not make a meal out of it. That is what we are going to do to CCC.”


ZANU-PF thugs understood that message only too well and the following day attacked an opposition rally in the same city with iron bars and machetes. An opposition supporter was killed, and many others were seriously injured.

These are just a few examples of the numerous incidences of intimidation, violence, voter roll irregularities and serial violations of the law and the constitution that took place during the election campaign. I put them on the record here so that there is an understanding of the level and extent to which the constitutional rights of Zimbabweans were violated by their own Government and in the hope that, ahead of the 2023 general elections, the international community and, most particularly, countries in the region will engage with Zimbabwe’s Government to persuade them to uphold the constitution and the right of the people to freely choose their leaders.

However, the UK’s strategy in the region must be about much more than criticism of a particular Government or their actions. It must be born of a real desire to engage positively with people—particularly young people—business and SADC Governments on a shared approach to tackling the challenges they face and supporting economic development in a way that lifts the poor rather than simply further enriches the wealthy. That means a real commitment from our Government to meaningfully engage and a real understanding of how our disengagement to date has left a gap which is rapidly being filled by both China and Russia.

Finally, we must have some self-awareness about the ramifications of actions at home on our ability to argue for values abroad. Last night, for example, we in the House of Lords debated the Government’s attempts to strip our own Electoral Commission of its independence by giving Ministers the right to issue it directions. What signal do we think that sends to would-be autocrats around the world seeking to suborn their own electoral commissions? What signal do we think it sent to people in the Southern African Development Community region when, immediately following free elections in Zambia and a peaceful transfer of power, we slashed our development assistance to that country by over 50%? What lessons do we think SADC Governments took from our hoarding of vaccines as China supplied theirs, or from our continued blocking of the TRIPS waiver? Words matter, but actions matter even more.

I finish where I started: with an acknowledgement of Britain’s deeply troubled legacy in Zimbabwe and a reflection on the tragedy that today ZANU-PF is using the same tactics and institutions, and in some cases the very same laws, that were employed by Ian Smith’s regime. It is doing so to serve the very same purpose—to oppress and silence the people so that, unhindered, it can use the wealth of the country for itself. Zimbabwe is fortunate, however, that its people have never been prepared to bow down to oppression and that—although bruised and battered by misuse—its hard-won democracy, underpinned by the courage and sacrifice of its democratic activists, still offers the best opportunity for change and renewal and a better life for all. I beg to move.

International Development

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that a key part of our international development strategy should be the promotion of democracy and good governance? What signal does the Minister think is sent when, following the elections and peaceful transfer of power in Zambia, we have cut its aid budget by 50%?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The reduction from 0.7% to 0.5% was always going to result in difficult decisions. It is not a decision the Government took lightly or that anyone in government welcomes. We will return to 0.7% as soon as the tests laid out by the Chancellor are met. As I have said, our focus on and recognition of the importance of the continent of Africa will be reflected in the changes going forward.

International Development Strategy

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, on securing this important debate. In common with other noble Lords, I await the Government’s strategy with interest, although on my part, I am afraid, with little expectation. I will focus my remarks on three particular areas that, among others, need to be central to any development assistance strategy: first, strengthening health services; secondly, combating climate change; and, thirdly, underpinning democracy and the rule of law.

Strengthening health services must be a key focus of our strategy. The Government’s decision to slash the aid budget—and here I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her commitment and integrity on this issue—was not only morally wrong but has proved detrimental to the health and well-being of our own citizens. Omicron is teaching us a hard lesson, but it is one that should have been obvious from the start: it is no good pulling up the drawbridges and putting the national interest before the interest of others because, in a global pandemic, the global interest is the national interest. The rich world cannot discharge its duty to protect its own citizens until it also discharges its duty to protect all the world. It is a parable for our times.

On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, told the House that

“we are only as safe as everyone else is.”—[Official Report, 14/12/21; col. 135.]

So why are the Government making us all less safe by the savage cuts we are inflicting on aid budgets and the huge economic damage we are doing, and have done, to developing economies by the travel bans, now, happily, abandoned? It is no good the Government saying one thing while they do the exact opposite.

As the Government develop their aid strategy, they must learn from this pandemic, because it is unlikely to be the last. They must work with G7 partners and other allies to help strengthen health services in low-income countries. The cuts are catastrophic to that process—over 50% in the case in many countries across Africa.

But it is not just on this perhaps self-interested aspect of health that the cuts are impacting. Funding to the UN family planning agency, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has been cut by 85%. The ACCESS programme and the women’s integrated sexual health programme have been cancelled, with projected cuts to family planning in 2021-22 estimated at over £132 million. The Foreign Secretary says that the Government are committed to prioritising women and girls, but once again their actions indicate the contrary. Cuts to sexual and reproductive health programmes not only undermine the health of women and girls but lead to unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, driving population growth, putting further pressure on resources and accelerating climate and ecological damage.

That brings me to the second plank in any strategy, which must be how we address climate change. Low-income countries are on the front line against climate change, despite being the least responsible for it. We have a solemn duty to use our aid budget to help those countries decarbonise their economies so that they can develop and grow without inflicting further climate and ecological damage to themselves and other countries. It is no good the Government telling us that they are increasing climate finance while slashing the overall aid budget. Low-income countries are not stupid: a cut in funding is a cut in funding, however it is distributed across different pots of money.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, underpinning democracy and the rule of law must be at the heart of our aid strategy, because without good governance there is little prospect of aid achieving its long-term success, and without the rule of law individuals cannot live in the security and freedom that they have a right to deserve, and economies cannot prosper. Again, however, the Government say one thing and do another.

Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said in his response to a question about supporting Zambia’s democracy:

“The noble Lord talks about Zambia, and of course we have worked very closely with other key partners in ensuring that democracy not only prevails but is sustained.”—[Official Report, 15/12/21; col. 300.]


Yet the aid budget sends the opposite signal. Zambia, a country that in August saw free elections that resulted in an orderly transfer of power, will see its aid budget slashed by 58.6%—more than any other country in the southern Africa region. Malawi, whose judges acted without fear or favour to uphold the rule of law and defend democracy in 2020, receives the second-largest cut, at 51.5%. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe, a country I care about deeply but whose autocratic, quasi-military Government have looted the country, oppressed its people and ruined its economy, receives the smallest aid cut, and continues to receive more in aid than Zambia and Malawi combined. Can the Minister tell us what signal he thinks that sends to democrats on one hand and to dictators on the other?

Let me be clear: I do not want vital humanitarian aid to be cut to anyone, and I am appalled that mine clearance work in Zimbabwe has been halted, particularly given that those mines were planted by the former racist Rhodesian forces. But I want us to signal clearly that we will stand with democracies by providing enhanced and practical support to those countries that uphold democratic norms and the rule of law. We are doing the opposite.

International Day of Democracy

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that, when it comes to the world stage, we have nothing to preach about. I often say that we need to ensure that we make it clear, when we talk to others on a range of the key pillars of democracy, that our own journey was something of a struggle, to get to where we are in 2021. The job is never done. One needs always to reflect on one’s own backyard before we start talking about the importance of democracy elsewhere. That said, I believe that the United Kingdom is and remains a real beacon of democracy around the world, and we continue to share our experiences, lessons and history with others to see how we can strengthen democracy globally.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, it is fitting that we should discuss the International Day of Democracy as we remember the legacy of Nelson Mandela, who was laid to rest eight years ago today. Does the Minister agree that we could best honour his memory by supporting democratic Governments in southern Africa and standing with those in the region and across the world who strive for democracy against repressive regimes? Will he urge the Prime Minister to send a clear and unmistakable signal of that solidarity by visiting Zambia at the earliest opportunity to meet its recently elected President and visibly demonstrate our support for the people of Zambia and its democracy?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. It is vital that we stand with democracies, particularly fragile or infant ones around the world, to see how best we can support them. The noble Lord talks about Zambia, and of course we have worked very closely with other key partners in ensuring that democracy not only prevails but is sustained. Indeed, there are notable achievements; most recently, for example, further afield in Africa, in Sudan, the continuing lobbying has resulted in a sense of the restoration of the legitimate Government—but you can never take your eye of the ball, and the noble Lord makes some very valid points.

Covid-19: Vaccine Donations

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, in response to my question on vaccine equity on 2 December, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said:

“I think, actually, the first duty of a Government is to protect their own population.”—[Official Report, 2/12/21; col. 1456.]

Does the Minister recognise that omicron demonstrates that Governments cannot protect their own populations unless they first understand that, in a pandemic, acting in the global interest is the only way of protecting the national interest? If he does recognise that, why are the Government cutting support for African health services at their time of greatest need in delivering vaccines to their people?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second point, we allocated specific support for African nations and have continued to support them in that respect. On his first point about my noble friend’s response, it is important to secure domestic vaccinations, but I agree with what he has put forward: we are only as safe as everyone else is. Therefore, we must support other countries, but this is not a binary choice; we can do both. We can secure our own populations and help those elsewhere in the world as well.

Covid-19: Vaccine Donations

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is engaging intensively and constructively in the TRIPS waiver debate. We continue to be open to all ideas that have a positive impact on vaccine production and distribution. A balanced and effective intellectual property regime has proved invaluable in this crisis, as in others, in supporting innovation and collaboration. In the meantime, we know we need to continue to push ahead with pragmatic action now, including voluntary licensing and technology transfer agreements.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, did the Minister have a chance to listen to last night’s broadcast by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa? He said that

“the Omicron variant should be a wake-up call to the world that vaccine inequality cannot be allowed to continue … Until everyone is vaccinated, we should expect … more variants … Instead of prohibiting travel, the rich countries … need to support the efforts of developing economies to access and to manufacture enough … doses for their people”.

In light of those comments, will the Government convene an urgent meeting of the G7 to tackle the issue of the TRIPS waiver—we do not have time to wait—but also to agree an economic support package for southern African economies, which will be devastated by this travel ban?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I did not hear the broadcast, but I heard the summary of the message. I do not think anyone pretends it is an either/or decision: either blocking flights temporarily into this country or enabling the widespread vaccination of vulnerable populations. Our view is that both are necessary as immediate-term steps. The G7 has been dominated by discussions around this issue, and no doubt that will continue.

Rivers and Coastal Waters: Sewage

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, like all public bodies, the Environment Agency had to make difficult spending decisions in 2015. However, since 2015 the agency has brought nearly 50 prosecutions against water companies and secured fines of over £136 million, including a £90 million fine for Southern Water. Defra and its agencies also received a £1 billion increase in overall funding at the spending review and, given that this is a government priority, much of that resource will be spent tackling this issue.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Can the Minister tell the House what calculation the Government have made of the economic and ecological cost caused by the continued discharge of untreated sewage into coastal waters and inland waterways? Does he recognise that, if the Victorians had taken the approach of the Government, and apparently of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, they would have determined that laying the original sewage network was prohibitively expensive, and we would still be throwing our waste into the street?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I think the noble Lord is wrong about that. I am sure he would be the first to applaud the use of nature-based solutions in treating sewage run-off around the country. I think my noble friend Lord Moylan was advocating a continuation of that approach, because it is much cheaper and has all kinds of benefits that go beyond simply purifying the water. That is preferable to spending potentially unprecedented sums of money in other ways.

Zimbabwe: Makomborero Haruzivishe

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the Government of Zimbabwe about (1) the continued detention of opposition politician Makomborero Haruzivishe, and (2) political repression in that country.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Zimbabwe.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK remains concerned about the political situation in Zimbabwe. We regularly urge the Zimbabwean Government to live up to their own constitution by ensuring that the opposition, civil society and journalists are allowed to operate without harassment, and that due legal process is respected. The Minister for Africa reinforced these messages when she met President Mnangagwa on 1 November. Our embassy is also in touch with Mr Haruzivishe’s lawyers as we await the outcome of his appeal.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, yet despite the Government’s efforts, MDC youth leader Mako Haruzivishe remains incarcerated and the political and human rights situation in Zimbabwe continues to deteriorate. In the light of this, do the Government agree that regional leaders have a critical role to play in encouraging the Zimbabwean Government to respect human rights and the rule of law? Can the Minister tell the House what discussions the Government have had at ministerial level with the Government of South Africa and the newly elected Zambian Government in this regard?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s role on the APPG. He is of course right that it is important that regional Governments have a role to play. In this regard, we have engaged directly at the highest level with the South African Government and we continue to engage with other regional partners, as well as regional associations, including the African Union, on this priority.

Climate Change: COP 26

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the advisory board of Weber Shandwick UK. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on securing this debate and on her very powerful speech. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter—where I had the pleasure of spending three years as a university student—on his excellent maiden speech. I also commend my noble friend Lord Glasgow for hosting such a large number, and such a variety, of guests in Glasgow. I get the impression that his house may be a little bigger than mine.

As we have heard in this debate, there are a number of perspectives through which we can view the COP. The first, perhaps, is as a disaster because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, the measures agreed did not come anywhere near meeting the targets needed to avoid catastrophe and the NDCs, as she said, envisage even higher emissions in 2030 than today. Secondly, COP 26 could be seen as a missed opportunity for a much more comprehensive agreement, which was marred by the poor leadership from the Prime Minister and a series of spectacularly damaging decisions in the lead-up to the conference. Finally, perhaps the conference can be seen as a partial success because, while the speed of the journey is still far too slow and must urgently be sped up, we are at least facing in the right direction.

The truth is that all three perspectives have validity. If you represent an island state that faces inundation of its clean water supplies and the prospect that it will sink below the waves altogether, how could you see the failure to take more urgent and comprehensive action on fossil fuels as anything other than a disaster? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter gave us an example of one of those islands that is now uninhabitable and is soon to be under the sea.

There was the astonishing way in which the Government set out, sometimes seemingly almost intentionally, to sabotage the chances of their own success and COP’s success by alienating in turn key players who were needed to secure a more comprehensive agreement. That was done: first, by betraying the global south by slashing our aid budget in a callous betrayal of the Conservative manifesto pledge; then, less than two months before the conference, by announcing a military pact nakedly aimed at containing China and which was hardly likely to encourage its co-operation; and, finally, by generating the maximum bad blood with the EU, which we needed as a highly engaged ally to exert maximum leverage if a more comprehensive agreement was to be achieved.

In light of all that, it certainly looks like a missed opportunity. In fact, from that perspective, it is perhaps remarkable that there was any agreement at all. Nevertheless, while both those perspectives have validity, I cling to the final perspective of COP as a partial success that at least has us facing in the right direction, even if at times it looked like the world would remain paralysed with inaction from setting off down that road. I cling to that perspective because the danger of pessimism is that it leads to defeatism. I do not believe that humanity can countenance that. I also cling to that belief because there were positive developments out of COP on which we need to build and go much further. Also, a challenging but positive approach to the issues ahead will be vital if we are going to succeed in this, humanity’s most vital task.

On the positive side, COP delivered some things. It kept 1.5 degrees within reach, if very distant reach. The agreed annual reviews of the NDCs are a potentially vital ratchet and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, we cannot overstate how important that is and how important Sharm el-Sheikh will be. The forestry agreement was also another positive. We will have to see whether some of the signatories, particularly President Bolsonaro, actually deliver on the agreement but it was a step forward and we should recognise that. I, like others, commend the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and Alok Sharma, for the work that they have done.

Also, if it was disappointing that India’s net-zero target was set at 2070, it was at least a positive sign that it committed to trebling clean energy in less than a decade. Also significant was the deal with South Africa to work with that country in phasing out coal-generated power. The Prime Minister said that we had succeeded in uniting the world in calling time on coal. That seems a big claim, given what went on around that issue. However, it is not insignificant that coal was mentioned, although, of course, not nearly enough was done. China and India also found themselves a bit exposed on this subject and they may be nervous in the future. There were other agreements on methane and electric cars that offer us some positive hope.

I was in Glasgow for the finance day in particular. One of the encouraging things there was that, although some of the claims about the hundreds of trillions of dollars under management were perhaps overblown, it was key that there was much greater focus and commitment to greening finance. That was important. It was the first time that a US Treasury Secretary had ever attended a COP meeting, which is also important. The announcement ahead of the COP by the Prudential Regulation Authority that it would be reviewing capital requirements to ensure that they adequately factor in climate risk was encouraging, and the ECB also said that it was taking steps in that direction as well. Finance and the role of financial regulation will play an ever-increasingly important role in our battle to address climate change. While much more is to be done, I was encouraged by that.

However, we have heard a lot about the disappointments in other respects—the failure to meet the financial commitments to assist the global south in transitioning their economies. At some point, we are going to have to address the issue of loss and damage, particularly for the island states. COP failed, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Sheehan, to agree an end to the burning of fossil fuels. That will be vital if we are going to achieve what we need in terms of net zero.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, highlighted the importance of transparency and fairness over metrics and measurements. As we go down the road towards net zero, how we measure and know that accurate measurements are taken will be critical. We still are painfully behind the timescales needed in terms of global agreements on financial regulation to ensure that, across the world, climate change is properly priced into risk.

There are lots of challenges, but we must not play into the hands of the deniers, delayers and defeatists by running a despairing narrative. We have heard a raft of positive proposals today—not least the six-point plans from the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Worthington. We have heard highlighted the importance of not thinking that we can just keep on acting as we are now. We have to restrain energy; we heard that from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and, as my noble friend Lady Parminter said, it is so disappointing that we have not moved on that in the building and heat strategy.

In summary, we had an outcome from COP that at least pointed in the right direction. It was more success than failure, but it still leaves us perilously far from what we need to achieve. We have to ensure that we do not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, warned us, allow this issue to slip down the agenda. All of us have to redouble our efforts—including the Government, business and NGOs—to ensure that we can ultimately deliver that 1.5 degree target.

Charities: Landmines

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has invested really significant sums; it is one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to funding demining. We have saved, as a consequence of taxpayers’ contributions to programmes backed by the Foreign Office, the lives of many, many hundreds of thousands of people. As I said, the FCDO recognises how critical this work is. That is why we are reviewing the decisions that were made: we are reviewing funding and country allocations and we will come back with details as soon as possible.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the Zimbabwe APPG. I may be able to help the Minister with the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Last year, landmine clearance in the Falkland Islands was completed, with Minister Wendy Morton paying particular tribute to the brilliant contribution of the team of Zimbabwean deminers. In the context of this assistance, does the Minister recognise that it is absolutely unacceptable for the Government to cut entirely our mine-action funding to Zimbabwe, which has some of the densest and most dangerous minefields in the world? Will he review this decision and restore funding so that Zimbabwe can meet its goal of being landmine-free by 2025, and will he meet me to discuss this matter?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, as I said in answer to the previous two questions, we are reviewing the funding decisions. We are reviewing country allocations and we will come back with figures when we can. No one disputes the importance of this work to people’s lives and to the stability of countries. Yes, I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord.