Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 18 APRIL 2000
MR PETER
HAIN and MS
FRANCES MACLEOD
Chairman
20. And foreign exchange.
(Mr Hain) Yes. As I said earlier on—I cannot
stress this too highly - Zimbabwe has very, very serious economic
problems at the present time with interest rates sky high. It
is around 79 per cent. With inflation at 60 per cent, domestic
debts at a third of GDP, unemployment at 50 per cent, and only
a day or two of foreign exchange reserves left; and huge debts
owed to the outside world, especially countries in the region,
which relates back to your first question, which is especially
worrying, Mozambique and South Africa: it is this policy, which
is being pursued, that is incomprehensible. It does not address
the problems of rural poverty. It does not support the need for
efficient farm production. It is resulting in violence and lawlessness
and now killings. It is an absolutely catastrophic policy.
21. The land reform programme and the agreement
with the British Government on the funding of land by acquisition,
was presumably part of the Lancaster House Agreement. Were those
commitments by the British Government, made at the Lancaster House
Agreement, fully discharged? And what about the commitments made
by the Zimbabwe Government? Were they fully discharged?
(Mr Hain) As Lord Carrington, the Foreign Secretary
at the time, recently confirmed in the media, the claims that
President Mugabe has made effectively about the willingness to
compensate on the basis he is now wanting—seizing land and
then compensating, passing the bill to Britain—there was
no commitment made of that kind. There was always an understanding
that there was a problem which had to be addressed, and would
be addressed, not just bilaterally but with other donor countries,
(as indeed we started to do), and that funding was provided until
the programme went awry.
22. So, in your view, where does the blame lie
for the fact that the land reform process has not delivered what
it was supposed to deliver, which is the alleviation of rural
poverty?
(Mr Hain) I think the blame lies clearly with the
Government, which has been in power for the last 20 years, headed
by its current President. It is interesting to contrast the situation
with neighbouring African countries, (South Africa included),
where a similar problem of imbalance in the distribution of land
between what were the ruling whites and now the majority of the
country having a democratic say in running it, a similar imbalance
existed but those countries have not addressed it in this inflammatory
and catastrophic fashion. They have gone about it progressively
with international support. We have always said—and I repeat
it today and confirm—that Britain stands ready, in a measured
way, to support a genuine land reform programme, including some
funding, if it actually addressed rural poverty; if it resulted
in farms which were going to be in production; and if it was not
handed out to various Government cronies; then we would be able
to help. It is significant that the Americans, who have been providing
the funding, withdraw their funding only a week ago because they
could no longer support this process.
23. In the light of past experience, is it realistic
to suppose that either ourselves or the Americans will be able
to come to an agreement with the current Zimbabwe Government,
where we can fund genuine land reform and be confident they would
carry it out?
(Mr Hain) We can continue to try, as we will do when
the delegation comes, as has been said from Harare it will do,
possibly next week. We will continue to try. It is quite possible
that whoever rules the country after the coming elections—and
that is a decision for the Zimbabwean people and not for us—will
have to adopt new policies in order to save the country and in
order to gain the international communities' confidence, both
in the region and through donor nations, such as Britain, and
also through the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which
will want to provide financial assistance but have been prevented
from doing so by the Zimbabwean Government's unwillingness to
reform economic policies.
Sir John Stanley
24. Minister, you said just a moment ago that
Britain stands ready to make British taxpayers' money available
for land reform. When you say "stands ready", are you
saying that as we speak this morning, notwithstanding the events
of recent weeks and the last few days in particular, the British
Government's offer of British taxpayers' money for land reform
is still on the table there today for Mr Mugabe? Is that the position?
(Mr Hain) No. I confirm that we will support a programme
of land reform which is transparent, as I have said, cost effective,
and contributes to poverty reduction. But we cannot support any
Government sponsored programme while land invasions continue,
especially since, as I said, half the land has been recently distributed
to Government supporters; while the violence has been effectively
either condoned or officially incited; and while the squatting
is being pursued in defiance of the court without Government action
or police action to stop it. We cannot offer support for land
reform. There has to be complete change of policy.
25. You are saying then that the offer that
the Foreign Secretary made at Cairo has now been withdrawn for
the time being?
(Mr Hain) No. I am saying that if this lawlessness
stops, if the Zimbabwean Government finds itself ready to discuss
genuine land reform, then we will do so. We will explore with
the delegation, when it meets the Foreign Secretary, whether there
is going to be a change of policy.
26. Minister, the offer of British taxpayers'
money, made by the Foreign Secretary, is either on the table or
it has been withdrawn. It must be one or the other. As I understood
you to say, it has been withdrawn, but you are now saying it is
on offer. Could you clarify which it is, please.
(Mr Hain) I think I made it absolutely clear. If there
is a change of policy, then we will have discussions about whether
we can support it. It is not on offer whilst the present Zimbabwean
Government pursues the policy that it is doing. May I say in respect
of taxpayers' money, of course £44 million of taxpayers'
money was paid by the last Conservative Government in the 1980s,
so this is not a matter between parties.
27. So, as of today, the offer has been withdrawn?
(Mr Hain) As of today, we stand ready to discuss it
if the policy changes. We have not made an offer where we have
said we will hand over the money. We have made an offer and we
will have serious discussions and consultations about how we could
support it. We have not simply said, "There is a pot of money
available." We will hand it over if conditions change. The
Secretary of State for International Development and her officials,
it is a matter for her ultimately, and she will have to be absolutely
assured that this limited finance was going to be directed at
helping the rural landless poor, not diverted in the way that
it has been.
28. I do not understand, Minister, your difficulty
in acknowledging that the offer has been withdrawn. You made it
quite clear that the conditions attached to your offer do not
apply. That the present Government in Zimbabwe is not complying
with the rule of law. That the invasions of white farmland are
continuing. In those circumstances the offer is not available.
So I do not understand your difficulty in making it clear that
the British Government, like the American Government at this time,
has withdrawn its offer.
(Mr Hain) Unlike the American Government, we were
not funding it, that is the point. If it helps you, Sir John,
I am quite happy to say that we will not fund any land reform,
to the extent that any offer has been made, because all we have
offered to do is to discuss it. Those discussions cannot occur
unless the policy changes. We want to have a dialogue about how
to change it.
29. So it is not on offer at the present time?
(Mr Hain) No.
30. Thank you. What sum of money was discussed
between the Foreign Secretary and Mr Mugabe in terms of the scale
of the British Government's funding?
(Mr Hain) No sums of money were discussed.
31. No sums at all?
(Mr Hain) No. Just to go back to your earlier point,
this was because President Mugabe showed no willingness to change
his policy on squatting and the deteriorating lawlessness on land
invasions. Therefore, we could not have a discussion about it.
That is why we invited the delegation over to explore what might
be possible.
32. I am not trying to drive any wedges between
you and the Foreign Secretary, but there are some very significant
differences in wording between the basis on which the Foreign
Secretary said that British taxpayers' money might be made available
for land reform in the House on April 11, and what you have said
in front of the Committee this morning in your own written statement.
You have said: "I confirm again that we will support a programme
of land reform which is transparent, cost effective and contributes
to poverty reduction." You use the words "transparent"
and "cost effective". I fully accept the Foreign Secretary
has also highlighted the need to contribute towards poverty reduction.
But within the House on April 11, in answer to the Honourable
Member for Burnley, Mr Peter Pike, the Foreign Secretary said:
"We remain willing to help further but it must be a programme
first that involves the rule of law and a fair price to a willing
seller." That is a very, very critical statement. In other
words, that the British taxpayer and the British Government's
position is that land reform will be funded only in so far as
it was a genuinely voluntary process based on a fair price. That
is wholly different from phrases like "cost effective"
which could indeed be knock-down prices. Your statement makes
no reference at all to land reform being dependent on wholly voluntary
transactions.
(Mr Hain) There is absolutely no difference between
what the Foreign Secretary said and what I said. I am happy to
endorse what he said. The point I was making in this statement
is that it has to be cost effective from the point of view of
the British taxpayer. That is what has to be cost effective.
33. Can you elaborate on that. What do you understand
to be cost effective as far as the British taxpayer is concerned?
The Foreign Secretary's statement is a clear statement of evaluation
that it must be (he has used the phrase) a fair price to a willing
seller, which is the valuation statement which everybody understands.
It is a valuation arrived at on the basis of a free negotiation
between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
(Mr Hain) Because it has to be on that basis—and
I am happy both to agree with you and agree with the Foreign Secretary—but
what we are not willing to do is hand over the money in a way
that President Mugabe is demanding and then have the Government
of Zimbabwe deal with it as it wishes. By cost effective we mean
that we will only support a land reform programme which genuinely
addresses the problem of the rural poor.
34. Can you give us your thinking as to how
you would ensure that the British taxpayers' money handed over
in these circumstances was used in the way that the present British
Government wanted, and on the basis of the valuation criteria
that the Foreign Secretary stated in the House. How would you
achieve that?
(Mr Hain) That would be for the discussions that need
to occur and which so far we have not been able to engage in because
of this policy of illegal squatting, which I do not want to go
over again, and because there have been no signs that President
Mugabe as yet, although the delegation might have a different
outcome next week, has been willing to depart from his policy
of effectively saying, "We are seizing the land, give us
the money." We are not willing to even discuss a land reform
programme on that basis.
Dr Godman
35. Following on from Sir John's questions on
land reform, may I say I am in agreement with what you say about
supporting a programme of land reform which is transparent, cost
effective, and contributes to poverty reduction. We all condemn
the savage killings of Opposition politicians, farmers, and farm
workers. Obviously our sympathies go to their families. Just a
couple of questions on statistics. The 4,400 white farmers. Am
I right in saying that they own over 30 per cent of the best arable
land and that as employers they have a pretty poor record? That
many of them have treated their black workers, putting it bluntly,
in a brutal fashion?
(Mr Hain) That was certainly the case in the past.
Many of them have a mixed record more recently. But what has been
interesting about recent times is that the illegal squatting has
been resisted as much by the black farm workers as by the farmers
themselves because the workers see their own jobs as being in
jeopardy. When the television pictures overnight showed their
own homes burnt down, in other words, Zimbabwean citizens burning
down their own neighbours' homes, the senselessness of this action
was revealed.
36. In your opening statement I think you said
that there are millions of Malawians employed on these white-owned
farms. Was that a slip of the tongue? Was it thousands?
(Mr Hain) No: The Malawian Government has told us
that there may be millions. Because the borders are so porous,
it is difficult for us to confirm that figure. That is why I am
very careful to say the Malawian Government. It is sufficiently
concerned to have said that it is very worried about the impact
of unemployed workers coming back into their own quarters. They
do not have jobs for them.
37. So you accept that there are millions of
immigrant workers on these 4,400 farms?
(Mr Hain) I accept that this is what the Malawian
Government have told us. It may be that there are also lots of
Mozambiquans.
38. You would agree that if we are talking about
land reform—and the kind of land reform that you want to
see and we want to see, equitable and corruption free land reform—that
this will inevitably lead to many of these white farmers being
removed?
(Mr Hain) That has to be done by agreement.
39. I am saying, if you are going to have land
reform, then by land reform we are inevitably discussing the redistribution
of the ownership or the tenure of the land. That means many of
these farmers will have to go.
(Mr Hain) Many of them will obviously sell their properties
if it is done in a proper fashion. What is also important is that
there are whole farming areas which are undeveloped at the moment,
being not in production.
|
