§ 36. Mr. Brocklebank-Fowlerasked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had with the Government of Zimbabwe regarding the availability of further aid funds for land purchase.
§ 41. Mr. Spearingasked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in making funds available for the purchase of land in Zimbabwe.
§ Mr. Neil MartenWe have never accepted sole responsibility for providing funds for land acquisition and development and have always made it clear that to do so would be beyond the capacity of any individual donor. However, we have already agreed to provide £20 million towards the cost of a £40 million programme of land acquisition and development, and at the recent aid conference we said we would provide a further £10 million for a second similar scheme.
§ Mr. Brocklebank-FowlerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. What success have the 18 Government had in persuading other Governments to make funds available for land purchase? Is the new sum of £10 million that has been made available by the British Government for the resettlement of land to be dependent upon a matching contribution from the Zimbabwean Government or any other Government?
§ Mr. MartenThe whole scheme will amount to £34 million, and we are contributing £10 million to it. Obviously, it will have to be matched by other donations.
The answer to the first question is that many of the sums pledged will have to be discussed in detail with the Zimbabwean Government on the timing and use of them.
§ Mr. SpearingCan the Minister be a little more specific about the use of the £10 million to which he has just referred? Is it all to be for land purchase, or is part of it for necessary infrastructure? What other countries have indicated a willingness to contribute towards the £24 million balance to which he has referred?
§ Mr. MartenThe £10 million is entirely for land acquisition and development. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), it is up to the Zimbabwean Government to analyse the pledges—which are often made in very round terms. One needs to look very carefully at the details of the pledges and the timing of them before one can give an answer to the second part of that question.
§ Mr. Archie HamiltonWhat will the Government's attitude be towards further funds for Zimbabwe if land is confiscated and not bought under this scheme?
§ Mr. MartenWhen the sums that have been pledged have been used up we shall again see what is necessary.
§ Mr. McElhoneDoes the Minister agree that as 5,000 white farmers in Zimbabwe are living off most of the best land, while 650,000 peasant farmers are trying to live off very poor land, this is possibly a recipe for conflict at any given time? If so, how does he justify today the paltry sum of an additional £10 million to settle this situation? Is this not against the spirit of the Lancaster House agreement?
§ Mr. MartenNot at all. The Lancaster House agreement made it clear that no one country could cope with land resettlement. That was the basis of the settlement and we are contributing to it generoulsy.
§ Mr. DeakinsIs the hon. Gentleman aware that if this issue is not settled satisfactorily fairly soon it will throw into doubt the democratic future of the Government of Zimbabwe, which this Government did so much to help bring about?
§ Mr. MartenI hope that it will be settled satisfactorily. The Zimbabwe Government, in conversation with my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, were pleased with what we offered at the conference.