立即津巴布韦民主

津巴布韦局势进一步恶化 - 英国委员会

由ZDN发表于2010年3月8日

2010年2月23日（星期二）

官Gareth Thomas议员MP，主席马克LOWCOCK和议员约翰丹尼斯

在公共问题听取的证据50 - 135

谈话内容的使用

1，本是一个在公共场所采取向众议院报告的证据裸成绩单。 谈话内容已被放置在互联网上对委员会的权力，副本已作出表决办公室成员和其他使​​用。

凡因公众使用或参考，其内容应明确，既不是证人，也不议员有机会纠正记录。 谈话尚未批准这些诉讼的正式记录。

3.Members接受证人纠正他们解决问题的目的是要求送惩戒委员会助理。

4.Prospective证人可能会收到任何书面或口头的证据，他们可能会在适当的时候给委员会准备。

5。 转录由官方速记员议会两院：世界银行格尼父子LLP，希望大厦，大彼得街45，伦敦，SW1P 3LT电话号码：020 7233 1935

口头证据

前国际发展委员会于2010年2月23日（星期二）

出席委员

主席马尔科姆·布鲁斯，

约翰·巴特尔

休·贝利

理查德负担

奈杰尔·埃文斯先生

马克·兰开斯特先生

安德鲁Stunell

_______________

国际发展部提交的备忘录

讯问证人

目击者：国家方案，总干事先生，马克Lowcock国务部长，国会议员，议员加雷思·托马斯，国际发展部和，津巴布韦单位，外交和联邦事务部主管约翰·丹尼斯先生，给证据。

Q50的主席：谢谢你，来作证，部长。 这是最后一次会议上我们将在津巴布韦局势的查询。 你会。 备案。 介绍你的团队？

托马斯先生：马克Lowcock，谁是国家方案的总干事，是在我的左边，是我的权利，是谁在津巴布韦台外事办公室主任约翰·丹尼斯。

Q51主席：谢谢你。 如你所知，我们参观了津巴布韦的一对夫妇或使周前。 首先，我会说，我们有一个从一个经济学家的文章说，自从我们离开，事情已经恶化，罢工的提取物。 它说，这样的话：团结政府是“死定了”哈拉雷是“人头攒动”，讨论提前举行大选等。 什么是政治局势？ 它已经改变，在过去几周显着？ 也许这将是首先要问的问题，然后一对夫妇更会出现。

托马斯先生：我不认为在津巴布韦的政治局势都不能容易被描述。 我们一直预计将有包容性的政府之间的形成和最终的自由和公正的选举发生困难的时期。 你显然知道，已经有超过薪金和包容性的政府内的其他紧张都罢工行动的报告。 它是否会导致选举宜早不宜迟，我不会在一个位置，作出这样的判断，坦率地说，我不认为我们中的任何一个位置，使该判决。 我们知道之间形成了政府和选举期间，将是一个长期和艰难的时期，事件轴承，。

Q52主席：你见过这样的“经济学家”的文章？

托马斯先生：我没有看到这篇文章。

Q53主席：这是一个准确地反映当前的形势？ 这是比我们会观察到三个星期前的情况更糟。 说的东西，如民族团结政府是“如死了。”和“祖马先生似乎同意团结政府已经成为一个假的”，但他并不想在世界杯之前的任何麻烦。 它说，茨万吉拉伊已经放弃了他所有的要求，其他尝试看看，如果他能得到自由和公正选举的空间。 那么这是“本土化”的规则，他说，每一个价值超过50万美元的公司需要提供51％的股权，津巴布韦黑人 - 这是一种公然的种族主义政策。 ，即使是在三个星期前，出现的情况是严重退化。

托马斯先生：我有没有在调解过程中，南非总统，南部非洲发展共同体在地方，并有正在进行的意义。 当然，我们的感觉，是包容性的政府的关键球员都没有放弃对政府承诺的工作方案，其中感。 正如我所说，有包容性的政府的中心地带的紧张局势。 因为大家都明白，政治权力仍然是非常有争议的。 不可避免的，当你有一个情况一样，也有将是高度紧张的时刻，作为相对减轻紧张的时刻。 我想我们可能在目前tenser时期之一。

Q54主席：我们将详细探讨，但至少获得教育，卫生和其他服务，为普通百姓，其中一些人的立场改变在过去几周显着？ 或，尽管在这些背景下的困难和罢工，这些服务仍在交付？

托马斯先生：一直在提供基本服务的改善，因为我觉得你有机会亲眼看到，当你在津巴布韦。 尽管如此，仍然在提供这些服务方面的巨大挑战。 在获得医疗保健，这是在津巴布韦的霍乱疫情在心脏方面的危机并没有消失，尽管有更多的卫生工作者到位。 在您的具体问题上，我们的感觉是基本服务仍然存在，但他们是非常基本的，仍然有一个更长的过渡到需要的地方更容易识别，质量好，卫生，教育和其他服务。 在津巴布韦署人员继续看看我们还有什么可以做，以提高这些基本服务的质量，但是这是非常在手头的工作，因为我怀疑你会看到，当你有自己。

Q55主席：最后的政治观点：呼吁提前举行大选。 这是在空气中时，我们在那里。 反论点是，你不能有自由和公正的选举，如果他们早，因为寄存器不存在 - 在某种程度上，它不存在，它是完全叠民盟的利益。 这是一个现实的呼叫提前举行大选的呼吁？ 这是实现的吗？ 这是可取的吗？

托马斯先生：这是很难相信，自由和公正的选举会发生，如果他们在短期内发生了。 正如你所说，有需要很大的变化，通过围绕教育选民，选区分界，安全部队的行为，散居在获得投票权的作用问题的思考。 自由和公正的选举，如何在短期内可以采取的地方，当然这是很难看到。

Q56主席：这将意味着你认为需要更多的时间直让这些问题。

托马斯先生：当然，我们的看法是什么还没有发生的变化，需要在全球政治协议。 选举委员会和运作还没有，但其头部已被任命 - 尽管不是，我相信，正式确认。 我们希望看到选举委员会能够去了解其工作，完成改革的过程中，大家都承认是自由和公正的选举是必要的，如果要发生。

Q57晶片组主席：丹尼斯先生，你想添加任何意见吗？

丹尼斯先生：我有没有添加，感谢您的意见。

主席：理查德负担。

Q58系列理查德负担：盆，国际发展部提供的支持之一，一直到总理办公室。 据我们了解，该资金的目的是围绕使“全球行动纲领”，以履行其作用是作为办公室。 当我们在那里会见了总理茨万吉拉伊，但他认为，国际发展部的资金已经履行的义务“全球行动纲领”特别有用，但他觉得还可以做得更多，并到他的办公室，将使用额外的支持，特别是在相同，排序：帮助总理的作用，以导致在议会行政业务等领域。 是否有任何计划增加支持呢？

托马斯先生：当然，如果我们作了进一步的援助办法，由总理或任何其他部，致力于改革和有利于穷人的议程，然后我们将看看他们非常同情。 正如你所说，我们的支持是设计，总理办公室来进行的那种正常功能的国家的办公室首脑会，包括监督预算，使确定，各部委都通过后，政府的商定的工作计划，并帮助解决政府部门之间的纠纷，他们发生。 当然，一直给予我们所做的援助背后的目的。 我们还为你可能知道，给予协助其他部门，以帮助他们开展他们部委的基本职能，而不是至少财政部预算编制过程中，以帮助他们。

理查德负担Q59：在支持水平方面，如果一个案件进行了增加，这将是一致的目标，将是这样的东西，我们将准备看吗？

托马斯先生：当然可以。 我们已增加了我们的援助计划，在过去12个月到津巴布韦，从英镑49万至60万英镑。 当然，我们正在寻找可以在帮助津巴布韦获得更好的服务方面最具影响力的最迅速的措施。 显然，帮助关键部委更好地运作，使他们能够推动这一进程，是明智的。 当总理或其他主要部长的援助要求，当然，我们始终看，同情。 我们将不得不作出有关判断其相对价值，对其他程序要求，但我们当然不会排除任何手段出来。

Q60理查德·配料：将适用于什么样的条件，如果资金将延长？

托马斯先生：我们希望确保，正在使用的是提供援助，以帮助促进改革，被用来帮助提供有利于穷人的服务。 这些将是关键的条件，因为这样。 “细则”可能是错误的用语，在这个意义上使用，因为它有一个共振的结构调整方案的坏日子。 “细则”是不是我们会用一个术语，在这个意义上说。 当然，我们可能会采取如何，我们分配在未来援助的决定，是由部长的办公室或1人道主义援​​助的大计划是，我们将要到被相信，它是帮助提供一个有利于穷人的议程，它会导致重大的改革，在提供服务的方式。 这些将是，如果你喜欢，我们可能采取的决定的指导原则。

Q61休·贝利：我想问一个关于一个自由和独立媒体的支持问题。 我前面说，如果任何政府的任何地方媒体在世界上的资金，你需要确保，有从出资者的编辑独立性和无控制，例如与BBC世界服务，我的话。 我记得在运行在纳米比亚和南非的解放有英国资助纳米比亚报纸可能Sowetan，它被作为重要的看到有一些论坛下国家控制信息传播。 在津巴布韦的印刷媒体是非常强烈的由国家控制。 我不知道想到了什么你的部门都给予保证，在现在和选举之间的运行，只要他们来，是公平和公正的选举登记信息，对相关各方的平台，部长所取得的成就，并他们的部委。 是不是贵署应该是资金或可能是应外交部的资助下，或两者兼而有之呢？

托马斯先生：首先，这是毫无疑问，我们希望看到，在媒体的运作和组织，让更多的自主活动，通过不同的媒体之一，另一个排序的操作方式的改革。 英国广播公司的回报率，无疑是一个积极的步骤。 在媒体行业是如何运作的更广泛的变化的关键是在“全球行动纲领”预示媒体委员会成立。 再次，如选举委员会，它尚未开始做的工作，这将是国际社会的一个关键问题，继续收看。 这是肯定的进步需要的地方的政府采购协定的一个关键问题。 在运行自由和公正的选举，绝对的条件。 一个重大的计划将被要求选民教育，媒体显然会在这一重要的作用。 如果我们要求是一个多捐助者支持选举进程组的一部分，我们当然要考虑这样做。 再次，我们一直在问，使选举在自由和公正的方式进行，我们已经在其他国家提供支持以选举资金的安排。 正如我所说，我们会很乐意看，如果我们问，到时来了。

休·贝利Q62：鉴于，传播信息和恐吓的历史障碍可能是在农村地区大于市区，我还以为收音机是一个特别重要的媒介。 你满意，有广泛的访问给全国各地的独立和公正的新闻电台？

托马斯先生：这不仅是无线电那里是一个问题，它是在一般的媒体。 没有以任何方式，我们在房间里将承认媒体的自由和公平的接入。 这显然​​是的地区之一，在“全球行动纲领”，其中重大改革是必要的设置。 在国际社会的其他人一样，我们希望看到在这一领域的进展，不仅使选举可以采取的地方，但也使行政机关可以不论其政治派别在这个意义上承担责任。

休·贝利：一是对文化的最后一个问题。 DFID的不正常使促进文化的一个优先事项，我想，你会推迟到英国文化协会或其他。 我们在书店咖啡厅举行招待会，并在我看来是一个自由表达的绿洲。

主席：不时地。 当它不被破坏。

Q63休·贝利：相对自由表达，是的。 整个非洲的音乐有一个强有力的传统 - 我认为费拉库提和米亚姆马齐巴 - 允许说的事情，不能在宣言发表。 你的部门 - 通过英国文化协会主席丹尼斯，或DFID的你 - 想提供异常和非典型支持通过文化或艺术表达自由吗？

托马斯先生：我不知道音乐是外相。 在国际发展部而言，这又是在一个特定的方式对他人提供资金的平衡和机会成本。 你是对的，言论自由是非常重要的，无论是通过音乐，通过媒体，通过活动的其他来源。

Q64休·贝利：我们得到一个小册子夫妇由英国文化协会发表的，我认为这是相当勇敢的工作位。

托马斯先生：请不要误会，我认为英国政局极为重要的工作。 我们正在作出贡献，与人相处，有助于推动通过宪法审查过程中，开发计划署，与我们的支持，已开始向人口基金的工作，我们希望将允许民间社会参与思考宪法言论自由，型国家，津巴布韦在未来应该有。 这是目前为数不多的途径之一 - 尽管它是非常不完善的，因为，我相信，你将有从某种意义上说 - 在民间社会和津巴布韦公民可以开始空气的意见和关于未来反弹的想法周围他们的国家。 在这个意义上说，它是一个非常重要的过程。 它不只是我们正在资助 - 它正在带领下，我说，开发计划署 - 但它是单向的，在我们开始看到越来越多的言论自由的一些迹象。

主席：马克·兰开斯特。

Q65先生兰卡斯特：谢谢主席。 我想探讨略微超出津巴布韦的边界，并与该地区其他国家的关系。 当然，从历史上看，在1994年之前，当我们看到了种族隔离制度的结束，津巴布韦是非常中心的地区，但与周边国家的关系已经恶化到一定程度，特别是那些由于津巴布韦散居南非和博茨瓦纳。 你觉得周边国家可以做，以帮助协助津巴布韦的发展，而不是当它来找到一个永久的政治解决方案？

托马斯先生：南部非洲发展共同体，在这个意义上说，津巴布韦的邻国，有一个可以发挥关键作用，并充当担保人的全球政治协议方面在接受这一角色。 这是令人鼓舞的，有一个调解过程正在进行。 它是一个过程，我对此表示欢迎，但它是非常多的过程，我们需要尊重，作为南部非洲发展共同体领导这一进程，并履行的作用，它有。 你问我，特别是关于南非。 南非可能是已经看到大部分移民已逃离该国，或已离开南非国家津巴布韦的国家。 津巴布韦是一个很有总统祖马和南非政府的国内问题，因为它是一个国际或区域性问题。 你是正确的标记解决津巴布韦的政治紧张局势，该地区的持续重要性。 它是一个过程，我们显然是密切监察，但南部非洲发展共同体是非常在这一过程中的铅。

Q66先生兰卡斯特我同意你全心全意，和我认为南部非洲发展共同体执行有1关键的作用发挥，但是，鉴于主席的开放问题和目前的恶化，尽管，它是正确的，南部非洲发展共同体应采取带头，什么我们还可以在支持南部非洲发展共同体，试图解决一些这些情况？ 或我们不应该做任何事情吗？

托马斯先生：首先，我们要尊重的调解过程中，总统祖马已经到位。 他已任命1自己显著声誉的高级别小组的领导，调解过程中和，尽管高张力，而我们都承认将“全球行动纲领过程中移动提出发生的时刻，，我们都尊重，调解努力，总统祖马的团队代表南共体是领先的。 中，我们可以帮助其他方式更直接，坦率地说，这是通过我们的发展计划。 重要的是津巴布韦人民一直有经济进步，我认为经济进步的开始扔在缺乏政治上的进步，已在津巴布韦举行的焦点。 通过财政部的一些援助，并通过我们的人道主义方案，我们已经扮演一个小角色，但重要的作用，在帮助稳定经济，在这个意义上说，随着国际社会的其他问题周围的政治进程，并缺乏足够的政治改革将进一步突出，既为南部非洲发展共同体继续处理，并为政府继续处理。

Q67主席斯特：这是相当困难的走钢丝真的走吗？ 例如，当我们在那里，你就会知道在报纸上的所有谈话，他们已经查获意见，外相已在香港总商会，他们被剥离的一方和其他方式的一种方式其他。 是一个相当困难的走钢丝走路，一方面，我相信，在这个房间里的每一个人，希望看到在津巴布韦的发展和进展，帮助确保政治进程，但是，只要我们是声乐，有时会适得其反，而在同一时间试图以支持这一进程？ 棘手吗？ 我们如何找到这两者之间的平衡呢？

托马斯先生：这不仅是津巴布韦，这是真正与各国的关系，我们的整个系列。 有时候，你是正确的，有走钢索。

吊钩主席斯特：我们得到它的权利，我想是我问什么？

托马斯先生：我们得到它的权利呢？ 我认为，我们得到了适当的平衡。 我们有一个上升的发展计划。 我们继续提供强硬的消息，津巴布韦政府的所有成员，不论其政治派别，我们继续寻找更普遍地提供，在现场的调解工作，他们是南非和南部非洲发展共同体的领导做的事情。

Q69系列主席：以“经济学家”文章，它描述了南部非洲发展共同体作为一个相当骨气的15名成员组成的区域集团。 津巴布韦已经无视法院的裁决。 他们刚刚通过的另一个种族主义议程，这大概会落在南非犯规。 穆加贝的态度似乎是：“我不承认南部非洲发展共同体。 它不打扰我。 如果它适合我​​，我会祈求他们的援助，否则我会忽略他们。“我们可以做些什么来说服南部非洲发展共同体站在什么它说，它相信吗？

托马斯先生：如果南部非洲发展共同体是不准备扮演的角色，它正在播放的，我们不会看到总统祖马成立一个高层次的调解组，我们就不会看到非常直接的方式进行的调解组它已经完成。 我认为我们必须非常小心，不回应，特别是在津巴布韦的政治家咆哮的时刻，并允许南部非洲发展共同体的调解过程中继续。 际上，我们提供了生硬的消息对津巴布韦政府的所有成员在需要时，我们提供直接援助，以帮助改革的征程，它这样做是适当的。 这也是通过南部非洲发展共同体的国际努力，我们必须允许它继续做其工作，不能拖延，如果你会原谅我这样说，由特定的物品或特别的意见，特别是在津巴布韦领导人。

主席：奈杰尔·埃文斯。

Q70主席埃文斯：谢谢主席。 总统祖马是下周在伦敦进行国事访问。 我以为自己和外相将与他会见，如果是这样，你会提高调解过程？

托马斯先生：这将是非常奇怪的，如果他来到英国，有没有与外相和发展局局长谈话。 我相信会有一系列的关于在南部非洲事务的谈话，津巴布韦将不可避免地被讨论的那些地区之一，但国家的访问是有广泛的议程，所以它不是唯一的问题，这将以任何方式上来。

Q71埃文斯先生：不，我认为其他的东西将会谈到，但显然他在津巴布韦的重要作用，是完全由国际社会公认的。

托马斯先生：当然可以。 我们认识到，他发挥了关键作用，我们尊重。 他成立一个由三人组成的调解小组，包括那支球队中的一些人是非常尊重，在南部非洲的政治，他认为在津巴布韦局势的严重性的标志，但这些决定的决定他和我们要尊重他的领导下，南非南部非洲发展共同体的重要性。 显然，正如我所说，我们将不可避免地谈论有关津巴布韦。 它是将提上议事日程的问题之一，但会有一个全系列，我们有其他问题，以及通过交谈。

Q72主席埃文斯：我要摸上土地改革，但在此之前我做主席提到的企业大约有51％的股权由津巴布韦黑人经济学家一块。 政府是否看到的种族主义政策？

托马斯先生：在南非的所有决定，关键测试避免爆炸的语言。 的关注，我们将有更多的特殊政策，对经济和津巴布韦人民的影响，因此，如果在津巴布韦的投资不太可能，如果它减少工作提供的机会，当然有是一个相当大的关注。 的问题之一，因为该委员会将承认，为什么有这么多人离开南非的就业机会的缺乏，所以任何事情，以防止从开始到发展私营部门，任何进一步阻碍私营部门投资，显然是将是一个大问题，但最终这是一个决定，津巴布韦本身。

Q73埃文斯先生：但显然这是一个种族主义政策。 如果你说，有很多生活在那里的白色津巴布韦和津巴布韦黑人生活在那里的人谁不，当然，他们应该有机会能够成为一个在任何企业在一个国家中存在的主要合作伙伴。 如果任何其他国家没有这样的事情，我们将撞击桌子，说：“这是种族主义。”

托马斯先生：我们希望在津巴布韦的每个人都有平等的经济机会，在这个意义上说，很清楚，但有时也承认，全系列的改革需要。 埃文斯先生，我很欣赏，你可能想我用特别的短语来描述特定的政策，但与尊重，我不打算这样做。 广阔的消息是，在经济方面已有进展。 我们不想进步处于危险之中。 我们希望经济进一步稳定。 这将要求一系列的政治改革，采取长期的私营部门投资创造条件，采取地方。

Q74主席埃文斯：这使我对土地的改革，这是改革，显然是得到某种在津巴布韦的进步和稳定至关重要的一部分。 你见过的纪录片穆加贝和非洲白？

托马斯先生：我没有，没有。

Q75 Mr Evans: I would heartily recommend it because our Committee has had an opportunity to see it. It is quite startling exactly what pressures clearly are on white farmers who exist within Zimbabwe. It is an incredible and very moving documentary. Clearly a number of people have had their lands grabbed, basically in a way that is not helping Zimbabwe. One can understand the reason for reform – we talked to the Commercial Farmers Union when we were in Zimbabwe and they can understand the sense for reform too – but something that is not orderly, something that is not structured, and something that leads to so much farmland being taken out of production and, indeed, then handed over to the cronies of politicians or friends within Zimbabwe, clearly is not doing Zimbabwe any favours.

Mr Thomas: I would agree with that. I would go further and say that not only do we condemn the huge number of farm invasions that have taken place, but we have seen terrible human rights abuses committed as part of those invasions which are completely unacceptable, both on an individual basis, the individual rights of the people affected, but also, as you quite rightly describe it, in terms of the devastating impact it has had particularly on the rural agricultural economy. Frankly, “economic madness” would be an appropriate phrase to use to describe that. I hope that that situation will desist. We will continue to make that clear in our comments to the politicians in Zimbabwe. It is clear that we do need to see a land policy that is fair, that is pro-poor, that is transparent, because that will, as you say, help to revive the economy, particularly in rural areas. It would help to revive the agriculture sector. We are a long way from that point at the moment, but we would stand ready, as part of a wider donor group, to help in that process if the political conditions were right. I suspect, frankly, the first step would be for some sort of land audit to take place, if the Inclusive Government were so minded, but, at the moment, we are not seeing signs that there is a willingness by all the parties to the Inclusive Government for a fairer land policy to take place.

Q76 Mr Evans: They seem to be dragging their feet on doing anything about a land audit, but clearly that looks like being a necessary forerunner to making some real progress in that area. You have just mentioned the international community doing its bit, along with the United Kingdom, in trying to bring some sort of commonsense solution to this issue. What do you think the international community and Britain specifically can do in this area?

Mr Thomas: As I have said, we do stand ready to provide assistance, as part of a wider donor group, if we are asked to. As I have said, the first thing would be to conduct an audit of land. Frankly, we would only see a merit in such an audit taking place if we had confidence that the information that such an audit gleaned would be used to promote the type of pro-poor, sensible, transparent land reform policy that most people independent of some of those in Zimbabwe recognise as being necessary to revive the rural economy there. We stand ready to help as part of a wider international effort if the conditions are right. They are not right at the moment.

Q77 Mr Evans: Even with the hyperinflation that the country has gone through, a lot of white farmers have gone to neighbouring African countries, as I understand it, and set up businesses there and are doing rather well. I suspect that Zimbabwe is importing some of the produce now of the former white Zimbabwean farmers – which is clearly insane. Do you think we are getting any closer to the political reality within Zimbabwe that a solution should be found? Or do you think that the mentality is still: no, we wish to right the wrongs of many generations and we do not care about economic or humane consequences of what the policy is that we are now doing in Zimbabwe?

Mr Thomas: Unfortunately, land is one of those issues around which the political power continues to be very heavily contested. As I described in my comments earlier, whilst we have seen some progress in terms of the stabilisation of the economy in Zimbabwe, we have not yet seen the major political changes which the GPA has set out as being necessary. One of the areas where we are continuing to see (to use a diplomatic phrase) “unfortunate activity” is around land. I hope, as the economy has begun to stabilise, that there will be recognition in all parts of the Inclusive Government of a series of further steps that need to be taken to help that economic progress. If those political realities kick in, then perhaps we will get closer to the situation that you describe.

Q78 Hugh Bayley: Do you not think it would be helpful if the British Government were to acknowledge that the terms on which white settlers, many from this country, obtained land at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century was not fair and did not follow the rule of law, and that the consequence for many indigenous people was that they were forced on to marginal land and suffered enormously? If we were to say that, then perhaps we would be in a better position to oppose the wrongs of fast-track land reform and to move the debate on to a position you were talking about, of pro-poor, rural development – which is what Zimbabwe clearly needs – rather than a return to settler plantations.

托马斯先生：贝利先生，恕我直言，我不知道这将是有益的。 我觉得我应该采取的责任，因为我们作为一个党，我们已经做了自1997年以来，在我们的援助方案和我们的外交政策方面的权力。 我不知道我们应该努力达到的时间把所有的历史看，在很长一段时间以前发生了什么事。 我们需要处理 - 与地面上的现实的时刻 - 原谅我这么说。 在这个意义上说，党组生产的报告是非常有用试图把睡觉的存在，各地在1980年发生了什么事，有些用词不当，但尽管该报告的重要性，而我们应该三思而后行。 我们应该承认，埃文斯先生介绍，土地政策，在政府的特定元素所追求不时持续的不利影响，并承认有需要在土地政策方面的全面变化，这需要一些时间由政府牵头，在津巴布韦，但是，如果条件合适，我们将随时准备支持。

Q79休·贝利：我认为你是对的，要看到土地审计，但如果英国货币以及其他捐助者的钱是朝着建立贫困失地津巴布韦的土地所有权，你将如何看到这一进程的展开呢？ 换句话说，你会如何选择无地穷人吗？ 谁会获得土地？ 谁会补偿？

托马斯先生：贝利先生，以尊重，我不打算去，特定的路线。 这是一个过程，津巴布韦政府领导，我希望它是一个政府，因此，它有一个明确的任务，将在自由和公正的选举中当选。 我曾经说过，我们将准备一系列捐助者这样的审计帮助，如果我们可以相信，从审计信息要正确使用。 我们并没有在目前的条件。 我们随时准备帮助，因为我说的，但我们不打算把桌子上的钱时，坦率地说，我们知道有一个系列的其他优先事项，在这里我们可以有一种感觉，我们的钱取得良好的结果为津巴布韦的穷人更直接。 但我们认识到土地问题的重要性和工作人员和部长将随时准备应对改变，如果政治条件。

Q80 Chairman: We agreed, anyway, that, whilst we would refer to the land issue, it was not going to be central to our report because it is such a major issue, but I think Mr Bayley has put his finger on some of the background to it. You just mentioned about effective DFID programmes. Indeed, DFID is doing a lot of the co-ordination on the ground and that seems to be welcomed by a number of the NGOs and charities. Two things were said to us: one was that if things improve a lot more donors are likely to come in and it is important that co-ordination is established in advance, otherwise it could get chaotic. That, on the other hand, may be too optimistic in terms of what is likely to happen. But you cannot give the funding directly to the government in most cases. Does that make it much more difficult to co-ordinate? Clearly other donors may not be very keen to hand it over to one lead donor, so what mechanisms do you need to have in place, or what could you do to ensure that the relationship between donors and the government is more direct than it is now? What are the criteria that would need to be met?

Mr Thomas: We are a long way away from having confidence in the systems of the government of Zimbabwe, so it is a long way off before we would want to be putting money directly into the government of Zimbabwe's budget. Nevertheless, there are a number of ministries which are developing plans which are pro-poor, which are designed to help all communities across Zimbabwe and behind which we feel we can align some of our support, so there are discussions with government about their future plans and we are trying, as you say, to work with other donors where we have confidence in those plans or in the merits of those plans to put our financial assistance to support the achievement of those plans. In terms of the broader issue about donor co-ordination, you are right that donors are co-ordinating in general fairly well, particularly those which are traditional OECD Development Assistance Committee donors. There could still be better co-ordination with the World Bank and others within the UN system. In the longer term, if we can draw some of the non-traditional donors into the donor co-ordination process, players like China, like South Africa, like Brazil, that would clearly be an aspiration that we would want to have, not just in the Zimbabwe context but in a whole series of other developing country contexts too. Also, the donor co-ordination mechanisms are relatively informal at the moment. As you say, if conditions continue to improve and other donors were to come in, then we would need perhaps to formalise some of the donor co-ordination structures that are there at the moment, but, in general, relations between the main donors are very positive, as you describe.

Q81 Chairman: You have increased the programme in recent years in difficult situations. If you were going to put more money in, are you satisfied that the mechanisms you have in place would be effective, or would you need to find different or better ways of delivering it?

Mr Thomas: We are comfortable that the mechanisms we have available at the moment are strong enough and robust enough to ensure that the money that we are spending in Zimbabwe is going to where it should go. Clearly, if you increase your aid programme into a country, you have to think through what implications that has for the particular funding instruments that you use. We work, as you know, with UN agencies and NGOs but also with a number of private sector organisations which manage particular programmes of aid for us. As I say, we have a strong process for monitoring how our money operates. Thus far, we are confident that we have managed to make a significant difference with our money. If we were to increase funding substantially, then clearly we would look at the mechanisms we had available to us.

Chairman: If we are moving on to that, I will bring in John Battle.

Q82 John Battle: In a sense, the real issue is governance, from my experience of the visit we did, in particular the field visit. I would like to express gratitude to the staff at DFID who took us out of Harare to Bulawayo. I went with some of our colleagues to Tsholotsho and I was very encouraged and impressed by work on the ground, not least around the Protracted Relief Programme. All these things have great titles, but I found a programme there to reach to people who were poor, the poorest of the poor, the people who were landless, to try to get back their livelihoods, with a whole range of activities from home care right the way through. I was very, very impressed by that programme. I just want to ask you a couple of questions about it. If that has gone in the right direction, can it be amplified and done elsewhere? The programme has two phases, as I understand it, and we have just entered Phase II. Phase I was going for a few years. I am lost at the scale of it. As I stood in a field in Tsholotsho with those older women, trying out new cultivation techniques for getting more water into their plants so that their fields of maize and cowpeas would look rather healthier than the ones across the way, I asked whether there was just one field or thousands of fields like that. In the DFID letter it says that the programme is reaching over two million poor and vulnerable people, but the plan for Phase II is to reach two million people, and sometimes we include the two million that we have not quite yet reached. I want to know the extent of the programme. Is it really being disseminated across? Do you have just one field in Tsholotsho or do you have programmes elsewhere in the country? Can it be scaled up? I know the programme is working with other donors as well, but is the scaling up happening and is it possible for it to happen? Can you find the land? Can the people respond to it? Can it be a much more mobile programme than just one or two little pivotal projects?

Mr Thomas: I will bring in Mr Lowcock in just a minute, but, first, thank you for your comments about DFID staff in Zimbabwe. If I may, I will to put on record my appreciation for the work they do. They have had to operate in some extremely difficult circumstances in the past.

Q83 John Battle: Indeed.

托马斯先生：正如各位议员认识到，我们有一些最有才华的人员部署在津巴布韦，我们那里做的工作的重要性。 旷日持久的救助计划不断扩大。 它不只是一个领域，你被送到，但让我把先生Lowcock上，放大。

Lowcock先生：这是一个漫长的时间，因为我一直在Tsholotsho，所以我很高兴听到特别报告。 该项目占地面积30万住户，其中约200万人，这可能是20％。

Q84约翰·巴特尔：目前？

Lowcock先生：目前，是的。

Q85约翰战役：第二阶段的目标是要达到2万人。

Lowcock先生：我认为这是目前覆盖。

Q86约翰战役：所以你已经遥遥领先。

Lowcock先生：我想是这样的话，议员战役，是的。

Q87约翰战役：好。 活动的范围是什么？ 许多非政府组织的赞美达到从家庭护理的创新方案，并相当个人的支持，以创新的农业技术，包括社区参与。 虽然我们有时集中，正如我所说，在政府层面的治理，新的人参与，是真正的创新工作，DFID和其他非政府组织国际领先水平。 的是，整合正在扩大？ 是参与工具能够发生这些类型的发展？ 我觉得当地官员在地方一级，这预示着津巴布韦的未来，如果它可以扩大从下往上抗。 是该署会在实地一级，楼层，在工作的看法？

托马斯先生：当然可以。 我们希望继续扩大该方案。 发展中国家有一个系列 - 我认为阿富汗 - 我们在那里有类似的基层计划。 我们尤其在津巴布韦幸运，有很多坚定的民间社会组织，都在玩，象你所说的，在帮助确定谁需要支持，PRP计划可以给社区最关键的作用。 正如你所说，我们能够给予支持的范围是非常直接的援助方案的一个特别重要的功能，是它的种子和肥料或家庭护理，一些更多的技术援助，以帮助非政府组织的帮助individual farmers understand what they have to do to increase their yields. As you say, it is an innovative programme and we have been encouraged by the international community's response to that programme. As you know, Phase I was very much a programme that DFID initiated. Phase II has had much broader donor support and in that sense has become a proper multi-donor programme.

Q88 John Battle: What struck me as well was that perhaps with the word “farmer” in English we think of some strapping young man who is ultra-fit out there in the fields, but there were women who were older than I am and what impressed me immensely was they have not had the benefit of my education but their knowledge of agriculture and agricultural techniques was incredible. I was quite excited by this new conservation agriculture method and I wonder whether your Department is able to feed that into DFID and some of the climate change discussions and see if those methods can be tested out elsewhere in Africa and South East Asia so that the learning from innovation can be passed on? I thought as well as the process of engagement with the people there may be some good agricultural science in there that could be very helpful as well.

Mr Thomas: Far be it from me to suggest recommendations to the Committee but drawing that particular point out would certainly help us continue to spread some of the lessons from the Zimbabwe programme across our other country programmes. As you quite rightly said, the lessons in terms of climate change, in terms of the particular farming environment, if you like, in which our programme operates does potentially give information that would be useful in a whole series of other developing countries – Sedex – particularly in the climate change context. As you know, one of the priorities that the Secretary of State set out in last year's White Paper was for us to do more on climate change in developing countries. Learning the lessons from successful programmes such as the PRP where there is a climate element is exactly the type of thing that we need to continue to spread across the Department.

Q89 John Battle: It was noticeable that we were speaking directly with the women, the farmers themselves, not through an intermediary, an agent, the NGO's leader or even the DFID person. DFID is actually involved in the programming. If I can put it to you this way: I understand DFID now uses managing agents and some of the conversations suggest that using agents can become bureaucratic and can tie up resources of the partner NGOs having to fill in analyses and sometimes the direct link with DFID is not quite there, as it were. Although we had the experience of talking to someone in the field, when the process is taking place on a daily programme basis is the use of managing agents causing delays in the transaction between DFID and the work on the ground? Is it sometimes holding up the provision of DFID support?

Mr Thomas: We need to recognise that there was a substantial difference between Phase 1 of the PRP and Phase 2. Phase 2 is inevitably much more ambitious and involves a series of other donors. In a sense, what you want from your staff is that they make things happen on the ground in terms of developing countries. Our staff initiated this programme and as others come onboard the pressures on those staff and their ability to do other things would inevitably have been much more constricted if they had continued to run the programme direct, so we took the decision to bring in a private sector operator and there was an international tender, as I understand. Inevitably, when you have that sort of change there are one or two bumps along the process. What the head of the DFID office in Zimbabwe is making sure happens is that there are regular, I believe quarterly, meetings with the heads of civil society groups in Zimbabwe to make sure that we continue to have good coordination with civil society. That will clearly be of importance, not just in terms of the PRP programme but also in terms of the other programmes that we have.

Q90 John Battle: I will pass to Andrew in a second. It was expressed to us that there could be a distancing built in. What would worry me is that what seems to be really radical – to use a word, I think it is connected to the word “roots” – about DFID's work is that ability to reconnect at the ground floor level and get the pro-poor development going on there and then feed it back up through. If you build a layer in that cuts them off again it could undermine some of the good work that has been done. I think Andrew wanted to follow through on this.

Mr Thomas: May I just pick that point up and bring Mr Lowcock in in a second. I think if there was not regular communication with civil society then, you are right, that would be a concern. In order specifically to avoid any suggestion that we are getting remote we wanted to set up a proper process for communicating with key players in civil society, and that is what we have now initiated.

Mr Lowcock: I would just like to put on the record that we have three members of staff in the Harare office who still work primarily on this programme and they are spending less of their time on the routine administration and more of it on the strategic dialogue and, indeed, at least once a month going out to regions like Tsholotsho and seeing what is happening. In terms of the objectives of making sure we stay in touch with the goals and the delivery of those goals, the way we have organised the work is an improvement on the past arrangement.

Q91 Andrew Stunell: If I could just pick up where John finished. First of all I want to say that we saw some excellent on the ground projects which will be the anecdotes and illustrations of my presentation about the work the Department does for a long time. They were very good projects.

Mr Thomas: But.

Q92 Andrew Stunell: The “but” is that there are so many levels between the money going in from the office in Harare to the wheelchair-bound lady with her four chickens in the compound outside Bulawayo that we have paid for. There is the managing agent, there is the Zimbabwe-wide NGO and there is civic society. When we pour £100 in at the top in Harare, how much goes out and buys chickens at the bottom, where does the other money stop on the way and what is the value of that other money on the way in terms of the investment in civic society and so on?

Mr Thomas: I would have to get you the exact breakdown in terms of the portion of what we put into the PRP programme that is taken up, if you like, as administration costs. We need to be careful and to recognise that those different layers, as you have described them, also play a key function in helping us to account for how the money is spent, making sure that money goes to the most needy people in Zimbabwe but also that we have proper accounting processes in place. I can see that as the programme has got bigger certainly one or two people have raised concerns, but I do think it is important that we have that administration element in there so that we do have proper checks and balances. We will very happily provide for the Committee, Mr Stunell, a more detailed explanation of what portion of the PRP programme goes as administrative costs if that would be helpful.

Mr Lowcock: May I make an additional point? As well as the cost of delivering the programme we need to think about what the returns and benefits of the programme are. It costs about $70 per household to provide the assistance we provide under the PRP and the value of the production that is generated by that $70 is about $140, it is a very high rate of return. The alternative to providing some of the inputs that we have provided would be in many cases to provide food aid which would cost us between $700 and $1,000. The opportunity saving of this programme is very high and the rate of return on the programme is also very high. The numbers I have given you reflect the administration costs as well as the costs of the inputs. We honestly think that in terms of value for money this is a very effective programme.

Q93 Chairman: I think it is a very important question that Mr Stunell is asking. As you will know, Minister, we are up against rather tight timetables. The constitutional requirements tell us that we have to have this report done in a very short space of time, so if you are able to give us that breakdown we need it very soon. I think it would be very helpful.

Mr Thomas: Okay. We will see if we can do that.

Q94 Andrew Stunell: I just want to underline that point. To give us real confidence that Mr Lowcock's presentation is resilient, it would be helpful to have an additional report and note from you.

Mr Thomas: Okay. We will get that to you even quicker than usual.

Q95 Richard Burden: This is really on the same subject. From what we saw, I think we do understand why managing agents are used and the good pressures that lead DFID to go down that road. It is also fair to say that in terms of the projects we saw in Tsholotsho and the engagement of the women from GRM there it appeared to be good. However, I think the uncertainty that some of us still feel is whether we will get to a stage where the tail starts to wag the dog. If the need to have those managing agents is because of their expertise and they get such expertise that they are used not just by DFID but other partners as well, the danger is that they could then become intermediaries that start determining what happens rather than intermediaries that do what is required from the grassroots or reflecting policy. I do not think we are saying that is what is happening but we see there is a danger that could happen. The question really is, is it right that could be a danger and, if so, how do you guard against it?

Mr Thomas: Let me bring Mr Lowcock in in a second. When we take a decision that we want to contract out, if you like, the management of a particular programme there are a whole series of well-established processes which we follow. We are very happy to provide some further information to the Committee if that is what you need to give you some confidence that the tail will not wag the dog in this particular context. There is good donor coordination in Zimbabwe and, as I say, we have some very experienced staff operating in our office, so I do not believe, if you like, the worst case scenario that you are posing would happen. Let me bring Mr Lowcock in to give you some further detail.

Mr Lowcock: I think you are exactly right, Mr Burden, that in principle the problem you have described could be one we face. We have tried to describe how we are mitigating it in this case. The Committee knows very well the staff of the Department is quite stretched. If we had more staff available to us in Zimbabwe my own view would be that are were other things I would rather they did next before more administration and more detailed monitoring and engagement on the PRP. I am satisfied with the approach that we have to the management of the PRP at the moment.

Mr Thomas: Just one other point to make. It is not just us as one donor who plays a role in this, there are a series of other donors who also are funders of the PRP. In a sense, it is a shared process for looking at the administrative cost element and taking decisions about tenders, et cetera, which in that sense I hope gives further confidence and further checks into the system.

Q96 Andrew Stunell: I would like to hear from Mr Lowcock that if he did have those extra staff and it is not what Mr Burden was postulating, what would it be that the extra staff would be dedicated to?

Mr Lowcock: One of the issues that came up in discussions yesterday with the finance minister in Harare was follow-up to a discussion he had in Washington last week when the board of the IMF restored Zimbabwe's voting rights. He had some discussions with the staff of the IMF about what it would take for Zimbabwe to move towards fuller normalisation of its relations with the international financial institutions, including potentially debt relief. We have a very good economist, who I am sure you met, in our office in Harare, who is one of a rather small number – I think I could count them on my fingers, excluding the thumb, of one hand – of international macroeconomists in Harare at the moment. That is a big prize for Zimbabwe to normalise its relations to that degree, an awful lot has to be done to secure that prize, but that would certainly be an area where it would be worth putting additional professional resources in. We will find ways to do that. That is one example I would give in answer to your question.

Q97 Mr Lancaster: We will move on to health, if we may. The Committee visited two hospitals, the Mpilo Hospital in Bulawayo and a hospital in Harare. We saw the maternity unit and we saw programmes associated with HIV/AIDS which Mr Evans will ask questions about in a moment. What we saw was very good. One of the key points that was put across to us, and perhaps we should not be surprised at this given the diaspora and the migration, was that there is a real shortage of skilled health workers, many of whom have gone abroad. For example, in the hospital in Bulawayo they had only recruited approximately 50% of midwives, although there is a midwife shortage in the UK so perhaps that is a bad example. What are we doing to try and recruit and retain health specialist staff in Zimbabwe?

Mr Thomas: One of the things, as I suspect the Committee will be aware of, that has, if you like, continued to focus our attention on the health sector was the cholera crisis in 2008/09 where the crisis was sparked by a long-term lack of investment in water and sanitation, but also the substantial deterioration in the health sector which was caused by many health workers wanting to migrate or simply not coming into work because they were not being paid. What we have done is to ensure that there is an allowance paid directly into health workers' bank accounts to provide that direct incentive for them to turn up to work and to go about their business. We can provide direct assistance in that way, but in the end there has got to be further economic stabilisation and a further reduction in the political instability that exists in Zimbabwe. We can make a difference in terms of public services, but to get anything like the type of public services that we would recognise here in the UK those broader economic and political changes are going to have to happen. As I say, we are making a difference in terms of the allowances we fund directly into health workers' bank accounts which has helped recruitment to pick up. We are also helping to fund the supply of crucial drugs. If you look at the government of Zimbabwe's budget, they simply cannot afford to pay all the salaries of health workers that are required or all the needs for drugs, so it is the donor community which has to plug that gap. It is not just us, it is a number of other donors too that are playing a role.

Q98 Mr Lancaster: You say the government cannot really afford to pay the wages, so given that we have strikes at the moment in Zimbabwe, and I think they are currently paid $200 a month and they are demanding $500, is that realistic? What effect would that have? What can we do?

Mr Thomas: One of the things we can do is not to get involved in what is a conversation that has to take place between those workers themselves with their own government. What we can do, as I have said, is to respond to the requests that we have had from the government, the Inclusive Government, to provide support to the health sector, and through the continuation of these allowances that is what we are doing and by making further money available to target, for example, maternal health and to continue our different aid programmes.

Q99 Mr Lancaster: Workers' pay and drugs to one side, I suppose the other key element to try to improve the health structure in Zimbabwe will be infrastructure. I know that we are investing in six hospitals in Zimbabwe at the moment. Can you perhaps outline what the aims of that programme are and whether or not you intend to increase it, or how you see it us moving forward in that area?

Mr Thomas: Obviously we want to move from, if you like, the crisis phase of the health support to getting a longer term plan in place for the health sector, one that can tackle all the different health challenges that the people of Zimbabwe face. I would not want to underestimate to you the scale of the challenge that there still is, we are still in a situation where I think substantial humanitarian assistance will have to be provided for Zimbabwe. The scope to dramatically expand our health programme, whilst I think it is there, is perhaps more limited than we would like. You are right, we have to continue to invest in infrastructure but continue to make sure there are health workers in place and that those health workers are being paid and, crucially, that the basic drugs and other supplies that they need to go about their business are in place. If you like, the next ambition that we have is to try to reduce maternal and child mortality where there has been a substantial deterioration in Zimbabwe more recently. We have recently committed some £25 million over the next five years to help people continue to get better access to family planning services, to antenatal care, to obstetric services and newborn care services. If you like, that is the next iteration of our support to the health sector.

Q100 Mr Evans: Another health subject is HIV/AIDS, which you have already touched on. We all had an opportunity to see some of the projects involved with that and I think we were all impressed with what we saw. It is tremendous if one considers that in parts of Zimbabwe some of the aid is somewhat thin. Certainly where we were in Bulawayo and Harare we saw some tremendous projects, so I was very pleased with that, but still last year 140,000 people died in Zimbabwe of AIDS. Compared to other countries, Zambia for instance, where the amount of money spent is way above, I think it is US$187 per person as opposed to Zimbabwe where it is $4, why is there such a staggering disparity?

Mr Thomas: I think often the disparity, frankly, relates to the political situation in Zimbabwe and the ability for the international community to spend money effectively to tackle HIV/AIDS. With our programmes on the health sector we have wanted to get to a stage where other players in the international donor community would support it. The Global Fund are now funding the health workers' support programme. As I say, I think as the economic situation stabilises there will be more opportunities to do more on healthcare, of which HIV/AIDS will continue to be a priority for ministers. Nevertheless, I think the UK can take some pride in the success that there has been, notwithstanding the significant levels of death because of AIDS that there is in Zimbabwe, for the fact that it has not been even higher. HIV prevalence has come down, it has halved over the last ten years, and our aid into the sector over that period has been absolutely pivotal to helping those who wanted to make a difference in this area in Zimbabwe be able to do so.

Q101 Mr Evans: I have got no doubts about that whatsoever. We went to see one of the hospitals there where the storeroom had eight months' worth of supply whereas two years ago they would have had nothing.

Mr Thomas: That is right.

Q102 Mr Evans: Getting the capacity and getting those drugs out into the villages and into the more rural areas is clearly something that needs to be done. Within the infrastructure that exists there, are we able to target some of the high risk groups like sex workers, children and, indeed, gays and lesbians?

Mr Thomas: We have a behaviour change communications programme which is run by an organisation, Population Services International, who are very well established in this field who are doing hugely important work in terms of getting those prevention messages out on AIDS. There is a whole programme of work around voluntary counselling and testing which has also been very important in making a difference. I am sure the Committee will be familiar with the way in which those who have migrated from Zimbabwe potentially would not get access to information about how to avoid becoming HIV positive, but through funding we give to the International Organisation on Migration we have been able to provide support for them to get help and information to those migrating from Zimbabwe to avoid the obvious risks at transit points, et cetera. One of the keys in terms of preventing the spread of AIDS and HIV infection is making sure there is good access to condoms and that is something we have continued to be in the lead on in the provision in Zimbabwe.

Q103 Mr Evans: One other area which helps greatly is male circumcision which apparently improves the rate of protection to 60%. The target is to circumcise 80% of the males within Zimbabwe as soon as they possibly can. Apparently the cost of that will be around $140 million but they will save over $3 billion if that could be achieved. We visited one of the clinics and talked to a couple of people who had gone through it, so they were acting as peers to encourage other males to go through the procedure. Do you envisage upping the amount of money that we will be directing towards male circumcision within Zimbabwe over the coming months?

Mr Thomas: Rather than just focusing on one specific intervention in response to one specific disease, however important that disease is, and I have a longstanding interest in HIV/AIDS, I think the challenge for us, both in DFID and the wider donor community, is how do we get more support more generally into the health sector in Zimbabwe and get a clear coordinated plan that looks at maternal health, that looks at HIV/AIDS, that looks at a range of other diseases too. Many of the responses that you need to tackle HIV/AIDS or to tackle maternal health are common across the piece in terms of having good health workers and good infrastructure in place. The challenge is to continue that process of coordination under good leadership from the government of Zimbabwe to get a series of clear health priorities in place which the international community could get behind. That is certainly what our ambition would be to support. Whether it has to be just DFID upping our funding levels on healthcare or whether there are other players in the international community, such as the Global Fund, who can take up that extra financial need is something that we need to continue to review. Health is certainly one of the areas that we watch very closely.

Q104 Mr Evans: Clearly all the donor organisations talk to one another anyway and that is important to make sure there is no duplication or people working against one another. When we visited the clinics we saw a number of posters with famous Zimbabwean footballers who were saying that they were getting this procedure and encouraging others to do so. It does seem to me to be economic commonsense, never mind humane commonsense, to ensure that as many people as possible have this particular procedure to better protect the nation, particularly when you look at the colossal number of deaths. This is a bit of a lobbying plea really. All I would ask is that you look at this again and make absolutely certain that not for the want of directing the money there, which as I say will pay dividends in the short and medium-term, we support this procedure as much as we possibly can.

Mr Thomas: I recognise both the lobbying plea and I fear one of the specific recommendations that will emerge from your report, and will obviously respond to the report in the usual way and no doubt faster than we would normally.

Q105 Chairman: I think it might be the next government that has to deal with that.

Mr Thomas: Mr Evans, I think your point in general about support for HIV/AIDS is well made, not only in the context of Zimbabwe but actually in the context of Sub-Saharan Africa more generally. We are five years on from Gleneagles where that commitment to try to deliver universal access to anti-retroviral drugs was one of the pivotal elements of the Gleneagles Agreement. We are probably two-thirds of the way towards achieving that commitment, so massive progress has been made but the target has not yet been reached. One of the issues that ministers in DFID are looking at is how we can use the international meetings that are taking place this year to refocus attention on that commitment to universal access, to look at what has worked in Sub-Saharan Africa, what has not worked perhaps, and what else the donor community needs to do. There will be an international meeting that takes place in London very shortly that looks at exactly that question.

Q106 Mr Evans: Hopefully when President Zuma comes as well on South Africa, maybe pushing him a little bit more on that area.

Mr Thomas: I hear your message, Mr Evans.

Q107 Richard Burden: One of the other major health areas, and you have alluded to it yourself, is the issue of water and sanitation. Six million people still have not got access to clean water and sanitation and obviously there was the bad cholera outbreak just a little while ago. When we met the Mayor of Bulawayo during our visit, if there was one priority that he wanted to identify it was the issue of the water system in the city. He said it was close to collapse and that was not unique in Bulawayo and his plea was for donors to concentrate on trying to address that as an issue. Where would you see the issue of investing in the water and sanitation infrastructure to rank compared to other priorities in terms of health and so on?

Mr Thomas: That is a very difficult question to answer. In the longer term there is no doubt that for a series of economic and social reasons as well as health reasons we need to see more investment in water and sanitation in Zimbabwe. That is absolutely clear. Through some of the programmes that we already have, not least the Protracted Relief Programme, there is work taking place on water and sanitation, but I would not want to give you the sense that there is a clear long-term sector-wide plan on water and sanitation which we are leading. This is one of the issues where as the humanitarian situation stabilises and as hopefully too we see progress on the politics in Zimbabwe the donor community with the government can start to put together a plan for beginning to see much longer-term, more sustained investment in water and sanitation going forward. It might be one of the areas potentially that the Multi Donor Fund that we are in the process of trying to establish under the leadership of the World Bank can look at. In the same way that water and sanitation is a key long-term issue, so is investment in the road network in Zimbabwe and investment in access to electricity. These are long-term issues which we will have to address. However, given the humanitarian need that still exists, and I think will exist for at least another couple of years, the balance of our programme focusing on the delivery of basic services plus, where we can, targeted assistance to support reforms in key ministries is broadly right for the moment, but we have got to keep in view those longer term issues like the Mayor of Bulawayo has identified, I think that is absolutely right.

Q108 Richard Burden: When you mention the Multi Donor Trust Fund, are you saying that this is an issue they could look at?

Mr Thomas: Possibly, yes.

Q109 Richard Burden: Or that they are looking at?

Mr Thomas: The Multi Donor Fund is not up and running yet, there is still a series of preparatory meetings that are taking place to sort out how the fund will operate and what it will focus on. Exactly what it does we are still in discussion on, but it certainly could look at water and sanitation issues. Frankly, if you are looking at a series of other longer term issues, such as infrastructure, roads, et cetera, you have got to think about water and sanitation issues to some extent anyway.

Q110 Hugh Bayley: Could I come in on the issue of the diaspora before we move on to a different subject. There are many thousands of Zimbabweans in this country and they tend to be relatively better educated because the better educated migrants migrate longer distances. They are very committed to their country and because of human rights abuses or political or economic pressures they do not want to be there at the moment, but might well return if there was political change. When the Government is talking next week to President Zuma, will you be talking about the issue of a right to vote given particularly that South African citizens in this country are entitled to vote in South African elections?

Mr Thomas: I think the point you make about the issue of the right to vote for the diaspora has been recognised as one of the issues that the Electoral Commission when it gets on to do its work will have to address. We all want to see progress on those political parts of the GPA where progress has been much slower. I think the big ticket items are getting the Electoral Commission established so that it is in a position to do its work, of which looking at the voter roll and the issues around the diaspora is one of a series of issues that are key to getting free and fair elections to take place.

Q111 Hugh Bayley: One other thing I wanted to raise that affects the diaspora is this: there are circumstances, as you are acutely aware, where money from the UK may appear politically tainted in Zimbabwe. The diaspora traditionally sent a lot of money back through remittances which has played a vitally important part in allowing Zimbabwe to survive an economic collapse. When I met the Institute of Migration's director of programmes in Zimbabwe, she talked about imaginative schemes that operate in other countries of the world whereby the government of the country in question from which the migrants have migrated and donors match dollar for dollar, pound for pound remittances that are sent back. Given that remittances tend to be spent locally, not by government agencies but by families on essential services, would your Department look at the feasibility of setting up a scheme both to encourage Zimbabwean citizens living in this country to remit money and to find a good channel for transmitting money from your Department? Is that something you would examine?

Mr Thomas: I am not sure we would want to look at a programme that matches exactly what one particular Zimbabwean living in the UK or elsewhere donates to his or her family as such. There are a whole series of obvious technical difficulties with such a scheme. We certainly do want to make it easier for remittances to get back. I would go along with the director-general of IOM in this regard: there are a whole series of innovative programmes around remittances and the use of technology making it easier and cheaper for people to get remittances back which are being deployed in other countries. One thinks of Kenya's M-PESA programme, for example, where remittances are being sent using mobile phones from a whole series of countries, as I understand it, to the individual recipient in-country. We are looking at a programme of work to try and spread the benefits of that technological innovation around remittances. I would hope Zimbabwe would be a beneficiary in that regard. As you may be aware, we have tried to get much more information into the public sphere about the different rates of interest and different types of financial product that are available for people who want to remit money to be able to do so to try and create much greater competition and, as a result, drive the administrative costs, commissions, down for those sending money back.

Q112 Andrew Stunell: Children have certainly been victims of the current difficulties and it could be said probably that Zimbabwe used to have the best educational system in southern Africa, it has now probably got the worst, yet DFID is still only contributing about 2% of aid to education. I wondered if you could give us some account of how that priority was set and whether you feel it should be a greater contribution in the future.

Mr Thomas: We have a couple of programmes that are supporting the education sector. One is a programme of support to orphans and vulnerable children, which is managed by UNICEF which helps to pay the school fees of a number of the most vulnerable children in Zimbabwe. We estimate that we have helped almost 250,000 schoolchildren through that process and we are hoping that the programme will expand this year to reach almost 600,000 children directly. Some of the other benefits of that programme include better access to nutrition, to healthcare, to welfare and to psychosocial support services for those young people so that in turn they can benefit better from the education that is available to them. The other source of funding for the education sector is an Education Transition Fund which we launched the idea of back in June last year and pledged £1 million to it. Our interest has generated pledges now worth a total of $50 million and we are in the process of sorting out the procurement process to enable the purchase of substantial textbooks for schools in Zimbabwe. One of the problems in the education sector, as I suspect you will have seen, is as a result of the political instability there has been a substantial loss of good quality materials for teachers to use. We hope that this fund will be one opportunity to begin to restore that damage.

Mr Lowcock: Can I just clarify the point on your 2% figure, which I suspect we gave you.

Q113 Andrew Stunell: You did, yes.

Mr Lowcock: I think that refers to the £1 million towards the wider Multi Donor Fund programme the Minister has just described for textbooks in particular. Probably what we should also have explained is that the programme of support for orphans and vulnerable children, which again the Minister has described, is also that education dimension, so to give a fair overall summary of how much we are putting into education we should include that as well. I apologise that we did not do that the first time. I just wanted to correct that on the record.

Q114 Chairman: How much is that?

Mr Lowcock: I will have to calculate that for you, Chairman. It is significant, and we can do it quickly.

Q115 Andrew Stunell: Can I just pull out a couple of points from your two replies, if I may. The underlying problem is that a lot of schools have been lost to use and a lot of teachers have emigrated or fled from the country. Are there any specific plans that DFID is developing or working with the Zimbabwean government on to get the restoration of school buildings and bringing back teachers?

Mr Thomas: One of the things that the Inclusive Government did when they came to power was to offer a $100 allowance to all civil servants, including teachers, which has helped to see a series of teachers returning to post and in that sense has made a difference.

Mr Lowcock: The biggest issue in our opinion is teachers. I am afraid it is going to be a significant challenge for Zimbabwe to attract back many of the best teachers who have left the country. The thing that will attract them back over time is an improvement in the political and economic situation and confidence in the future of their country, so it all turns back on what the Minister was describing about the overall political situation. Clearly there is also a school infrastructure problem and textbook issue, but we think first teachers, second textbooks and probably third infrastructure would be the order of priorities.

Q116 Andrew Stunell: Can I just ask a question about textbooks? I asked a number of questions in Zimbabwe and we received representations from some of the witnesses there. My impression was that we had gone for a big bang solution to getting textbooks in which was leading to a substantial delay in getting any textbooks in, when it might have been better or more appropriate to have gone for a small-scale solution with more rapid results. We were told by an official from the Department of Education, I think, that they were still waiting for textbooks which were supposed to have been ready at the beginning of the school year, et cetera. I would be interested in your commentary on that situation and for some assurance about how the textbook programme, for which we appear to have set aside funds, is actually going to be delivered to a sensible timetable.

Mr Thomas: I think the first thing is that our initial interest back in June in making money available for the supply of textbooks has sparked considerable interest from the wider donor community, perhaps more than certainly I had expected. What we are trying to do is to make sure that money collectively is well spent by having a central procurement programme. We believe that will deliver substantial economies of scale. There has been a process by which the Zimbabwe Ministry of Education has been looking at trying to prioritise a particular core set of textbooks to be delivered across the country. I recognise the appetite inevitably for teachers to want to have access to those books, but it is right that we get the procurement process right and it is right that we try to deliver economies of scale. Given the size of the pot and the increase in the size of the pot it has clearly taken some time to get that right, but we hope we are close to achieving that and getting the textbooks out.

Mr Lowcock: I would, if I may, like to answer the question we promised you a subsequent answer to, which is the share if we had included the programme of support in our total programme in education. It would be about 6%, about £2.4 million going into education through the programme of support and then £1 million this year through the Education Transition Fund. As the Minister said, we were trading off speed with efficiency and value for money. We have got a much cheaper deal and, therefore, can buy many more textbooks in the way we have done the procurement, but I take the point you have made about needing to think carefully about that trade-off between speed and efficiency.

Q117 Andrew Stunell: So when do we now expect those books to be available to schools, bearing in mind the money was allocated back in July, August last year?

Mr Lowcock: We will need to check when we expect the first deliveries, but the procurement process is advanced now.

Q118 Andrew Stunell: And the schools have no books.

Mr Lowcock: Well, most schools have some books. Clearly, yes, there is an issue and that was the trade-off we were trying to manage. I will find out for you exactly when we expect the first deliveries.

Q119 Mr Lancaster: The Committee went to see some projects directed at orphans and vulnerable children and the Department estimates that more than 90% of the country's orphans have been absorbed by the extended family. Indeed, 40% of households in rural areas actually care for orphans and vulnerable children but they have almost no financial assistance, so how do you feel that external donors can help in this process and support them?

Mr Thomas: There are a number of programmes that we contribute to which have an impact on orphans and vulnerable children and the financial needs either of the individual children themselves or those who are looking after them. I described the programme of support to orphans and vulnerable children in answer to Mr Stunell. Paying for education fees of the most vulnerable children is one obvious way in which we can help. The second is through the Protracted Relief Programme which we talked about in answer to questions from Mr Battle. That also provides support often to some of the young people of Zimbabwe who have lost parents and who perhaps head up households themselves because of the loss of parents. Many of those people who have taken in orphans and vulnerable children are beneficiaries of the Protracted Relief Programme and in that sense get support from the international community. As a Department we do not pick the individual recipients, that is done through the NGOs who, if you like, deliver the process and the support on the ground.

Q120 Mr Lancaster: I accept the answer, but I suppose what I am really pushing for is given the sheer scale and how a relatively small percentage are being reached given limited resources from the Department, how can we move forward perhaps in greater collaboration with others. That is really what I am asking.

Mr Thomas: I think the Protracted Relief Programme is expanding. It has gone from the first phase when it was largely just the UK funding it to a much bigger programme which is allowing us to reach many more people, including orphans directly or those who are looking after orphans. Similarly, the expansion of the number of children who will get support through the overseas programme up from about 250,000 so far to, we hope, 600,000 this year is an example of the way in which we are trying to expand the numbers that we can access. As we have discussed, in the end it does come back to the economic and political situation in the country moving forward and donors being willing to do more as a result and, frankly, more resources being able to be generated in-country.

Q121 John Battle: If I could just go back to the issue of food security. I think the UN at one point said five million people would be food insecure and the Crop and Supply Assessment Mission estimated around 2.8 million might need humanitarian assistance before the next harvest, which is this April. Some of the reports are suggesting that the weather has not been all that good and the harvest might not be that good. What is your latest prediction for food aid requirements that are coming up in the next year from April?

Mr Thomas: In terms of prediction in terms of hard numbers, I am not sure I can give you that specifically now. We share the analysis that you employed that there are some early indications that this year's harvest is not going to be as good as in previous years. As I said, notwithstanding that sense of what this year's harvest is going to be, I think we will have to provide humanitarian assistance anyway at least for the next two years.

Q122 John Battle: The next two years.

Mr Thomas: In recent years there has always been a substantial humanitarian component of our aid programme at different times, almost 50% or more. We work very closely with organisations such as the World Food Programme who deliver that food aid and humanitarian assistance. Frankly, the development of the Protracted Relief Programme is not only an attempt to meet the immediate food needs of those affected but is trying to get at some of the deeper roots of that humanitarian crisis. As well as giving the seeds and fertiliser programme direct support, we are also giving support to NGOs so that they can give actual guidance to people as to how to use those seeds and fertilisers to increase the yields that they do get.

Mr Lowcock: I was going to add a point on when we will have a better sense of this year's harvest. It will be March-time probably. Most people think that it will be better than 2008 and possibly less good than 2009, so the numbers requiring emergency assistance will be in that range that you described.

Q123 John Battle: Can I thank you for the way in which you gave the answer to that longer term rather than immediate relief. Forgive me, I am not sure I clearly understand this. You provided £9 million to the World Food Programme in 2009 and that aid was mainly for food relief programmes. I wonder whether the World Food Programme itself has that longer term food programme development as well as relief. It is that distinction between your work on the programmes I referred to earlier that are getting sustainable agriculture again, but are you working with the World Food Programme itself on getting those longer term programmes in as opposed to just dishing out food aid, frankly?

Mr Thomas: We are, but it is important to recognise that the World Food Programme has particular expertise at getting food aid to those who need it instantly, who are hungry now in that sense. We are looking as a donor community, which includes WFP, at a cash transfer programme, in a sense, which helps people both to plan for a slightly longer term process as well as meeting their immediate needs now.

Q124 John Battle: If I could follow through from Mark Lowcock's comment. When will the figures be available? We are in March next week, are we not, so is there a chance that an assessment could be included in our report? Have we got time to get that far?

Mr Lowcock: Normally it is sensible in Zimbabwe to make an assessment of the harvest level by late March. We will give you any update we can at the point at which you want to go to press, but late March is probably the earliest at which we can say something resembling an authoritative answer.

Q125 John Battle: If I can be absolutely clear, that is two things: one to get on to those longer term food development programmes, both our own and working with the World Food Programme, and the other is to look to cash transfers to stimulate that rather than going to handouts. Have I got that right?

Mr Thomas: That is effectively where we are now. Obviously if the harvest is better than anticipated then we can move further up that particular long-term process earlier.

Q126 John Battle: Also not to lose, and sometimes it is lost, may I say, and criticism is made of the UN and the World Food Programme sometimes. People standing in queues and just getting it dished out to them does not always encourage community participation, whereas other methods might include that engagement of development with the people at the local level, which is where I am hoping our programmes are geared towards now.

Mr Thomas: You have to use a range of ways of getting help to people and you have to look at the reality on the ground and adjust what you do to reflect that reality.

John Battle: The direction of the overall programme is very clear from that answer, thank you.

Q127 Richard Burden: Could we move on to the question of internally displaced people, which is clearly a very, very big issue. Estimates vary of IDPs making up between just over 4% of the population and 7.5% of the population. Yet there is also difficulty, there is quite a lot of evidence, a lot of concern being voiced that as far as the Zimbabwean Government is concerned, because they take the view that IDPs do not exist, IDPs are being fairly systematically excluded from a number of relief and humanitarian programmes. Some of the NGOs are saying that really the UN as an institution is not tackling this head on and that it needs to be a lot more assertive around the question of IDPs, both in terms of Zimbabwe's own obligation under UN obligations but also from a straight humanitarian point of view; aid is not getting to where it should be getting. What is your response to that?

Mr Thomas: I think that was a situation that was certainly true of the previous Government. I think the Inclusive Government has been better at recognising both the existence of IDPs and their needs, but I would not want to downplay the challenges that still remain. I think many of our existing programmes upon which we have touched are also giving assistance to those who are internally displaced within Zimbabwe but who are perhaps living with other families or who are vulnerable in some other way. Clearly there is more we need to do, as we have described, across the range, but I do believe that our programmes and those of others in the international community, are helping to get aid to those who are internally displaced, albeit there is clearly a lot more that could happen.

Q128 Richard Burden: Certainly the impression we got was that a number of NGOs and others were saying that yes, whilst things may have improved since the formation of the Inclusive Government, the issue is still very much there as far as IDPs are concerned. Partly because of the nature of some of the security ministries, it is quite easy to get in the way of aid programmes where necessary.

Mr Thomas: In that sense, absolutely, I would agree with that. There is a huge problem in terms of the ability of IDPs to move around in terms of particular locations and the level of need that we have described in terms of humanitarian issues, in terms of children or young people, if they have been internally displaced, it is particularly acute in that sense. What I would want to avoid the Committee having the impression is that none of our programme is thinking through issues around IDPs; they very much are. However, as NGOs have described to you, certainly there are real difficulties for IDPs in terms of the security situation.

Q129 Chairman: The aid programme to Zimbabwe has more than doubled in the last four years. You said in a press release last August that the Department was willing to re-engage and support recovery in Zimbabwe provided the new Government can demonstrate: its commitment to sound economic management; the democratic process and respect for human rights; the rule of law; full and equal access to humanitarian assistance; and a timely election held to international standards. I would suggest none of those things is what is happening on the ground. The serious point behind that is, nevertheless, you have increased it. What capacity is there for increasing it further or perhaps, putting it the other way round, how do you assess your ability to deliver and whether you should do more or less? What is the process that goes round the Department in evaluating this?

Mr Thomas: We do look firstly at the humanitarian situation on the ground and we would provide humanitarian aid almost regardless of the political situation, and it is clearly right that we do get help to people who are in desperate need, despite the particular governments that they have. In terms of long-term development assistance, you are right, we will have to look at the political and economic conditions that are operating and are on the ground before we can make big decisions about be it substantial increases in aid or substantial changes in the nature of our programmes. I think there has been progress in Zimbabwe, in particular in terms of the economics of the country. Clearly the political progress in Zimbabwe has been much, much slower, and that certainly affects our ability to do more and more quickly; there is no question of that. If we were to see faster political progress, then there is no question that we could do more, and more quickly, and I am sure that others in the international community would probably see things in the same way.

Q130 Chairman: We were told, and indeed we saw for ourselves, that in spite of the migration of some of the brightest and best people from Zimbabwe, the administrative capacity to deliver services was one of the best in Africa. Even now we saw effective delivery. Do you envisage a situation, if the political background were transformed, where government support or sector support would be a possibility? Obviously it is not today but can you see a scenario where it would and how would you judge that? Is that something you could even incentivise?

Mr Thomas: I think it is a long way off. I would hope that we could get to a situation where the politics of Zimbabwe had moved so radically forward that we could have confidence in government systems or in the particular sector plans of particular ministries. I think we are a long way off from having confidence that the Government's financial systems are strong enough and robust enough and would be free from political interference. Having said that, there are ministries that are committed to reform and who are starting to try and give direction to what should happen in their particular sectors, and where we have confidence in the plans of those ministries, then we are trying to align our support as a donor community behind those plans. I think moving down the route of sector support or budget support is a long way off. The first stage is what we are embarked on, which is where we have confidence in the plans of a particular ministry thinking through how, without going through government systems, we can support those plans and move forward.

Q131 Chairman: And if you were increasing the funding further, how would you allocate that between multilateral or donor partnerships as opposed to the bilateral work that the NGOs are doing, which, to be honest, is mostly what we were looking at, which was extremely good, but the question is whether it is best to expand that or would it be best to expand it through multilaterals or would it be a parallel process?

Mr Thomas: I do not think we have a fixed view, frankly, in that sense. We would want to spend money in a way that was going to have most impact most quickly and for which we can properly account. Whether that is through UN organisations or through civil society, I think in reality it will be through a mixture and quite what the balance of that mixture would be going forward, I do not think we are yet in a position to say. It does depend on how particular programmes work. I think the Protracted Relief Programme is a programme, for example, that has a mixture of a whole series of civil society organisations and is making a significant difference. If the humanitarian situation were to deteriorate, clearly using organisations like the World Food Programme would make a huge amount of sense, but they, too, use civil society organisations, as I understand it, so it is not a question of either/or. I think it will simply come down to a hard decision as to which particular organisations are going to get money on the ground where it needs fastest.

Q132 Chairman: In spite of the very heavy anti-British rhetoric, the general dynamic on the ground is the attitude between the Zimbabwean and British people is quite positive in terms of that underlying trend. It was suggested to us that Zimbabwe ought to be one of the overriding priorities for the UK, in other words one of the three or four countries in which we do most, not because of that particular British interest, which is just stated as a positive underlying fact, but because it would have such a dynamic effect on the whole dynamic of Southern Africa if it could be turned around. Do you accept that as a possible analysis and, if you do, what could DFID do more that would reflect that priority, taking on board entirely that it is complicated and unpredictable but the argument that so long as you were working in the right direction it justified that kind of prioritisation?

Mr Thomas: Zimbabwe takes up a significant amount of both ministerial and very senior official time in both Departments in that sense, so it is accorded a high level of priority. I think the analysis about the importance of Zimbabwe to sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely right. There is no doubt that if we were to see further economic stability and progress and further political progress, Zimbabwe's recovery could help to drive progress towards the Millennium Development Goals across the whole of the region. I have a particular interest in regional integration and in the transport infrastructure that helps to drive, if you will forgive the pun, that integration, Zimbabwe has a pivotal place in the north-south corridor, a network of key roads, and therefore the investment, or lack of investment, that Zimbabwe puts into its road network has a fundamental impact on the capacity of sub-Saharan Africa to trade between the countries in that area. I think the analysis is spot on and that is why I hope that we will see the type of economic progress and political progress that I suspect all of us would want.

Q133 Chairman: Thank you very much. The Committee would want to repeat the thanks that have already been made to the DFID staff for the visit they organised. All eight members of the Committee who went on the visit came away with a much more positive impression of what is going on than we had anticipated, although I would hasten to add we are not naive enough not to realise the huge political difficulties and underlying tensions and threats that could blow it all away. We understood that. What we saw was impressive. Our report has to focus on the development agenda rather than the political agenda, but, again, you cannot deliver the one without the other. Our intention is to complete the report in advance of an Election unless we are ambushed.

Mr Thomas: With that in mind, I wonder if I can ask Mr Lowcock to give you the answer on the textbook delivery timescale. I think we have that information.

Q134 Chairman: Anything you have now and anything you do not have now if you can think days rather than anything else.

Mr Lowcock: Could I preface the answer to Mr Stunell's question by saying that of course we are not in complete control of this because we are a tiny part of the financing. We have to get all the other players into place as well. The answer to the question is that the contract will be let in the next few weeks and the first books will be delivered from about eight weeks from then, so about 12 weeks from now the first books will be delivered.

Q135 Chairman: The Committee will obviously watch with interest the developments which obviously go through convolutions almost daily. Perhaps the one positive thing Mark said was that whilst nobody knows where it might head, the feeling was that things had got to the point where going back to a situation where there was no space was perhaps unthinkable unless the situation deteriorated beyond all hope. If I may say so, there were comments and compliments about DFID's role, and indeed the Foreign Office's role because it is important to recognise this is a joint operation, in doing that. I think it was the Dutch development representative who said specifically that he wanted to put on record his appreciation of the leadership role that was being provided by DFID in Zimbabwe and how important it was, both politically and in terms of development. I am happy to put that on the record and say that we appreciate it and we appreciate that the team there are doing really good work in difficult and challenging situations, but at the moment not unrewarding because there is something coming back for it. Can I thank you very much indeed for your evidence. I genuinely hope that our report is something that will make a useful contribution to both your work and a wider understanding of what we are trying to do.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Bruce.

提交回复

点击这里取消回复。