Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, welcome though it was, the exemption from the climate change levy for coal-mine methane did no more than cancel out the effect of the reduction in electricity prices? Is he also aware that if there is to be any significant increase in the entrapment of methane from that source, contributing massively to the Government's environmental objectives, the equivalent of the renewables' obligation must be extended to the operators of coal-mine methane extraction?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we made the exemption from the climate change levy because we were asked to do so. It seemed to me entirely right that we should. The electricity price has gone the other way, but that means merely that the market price for energy has gone down, and rightly so.

We have debated previously whether coal-mine methane is a renewable and it is quite clear that it is not, under any of the definitions. Therefore, it is not appropriate that we should put it in the same category.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister says that coal-mine methane is not a renewable, but why is it not exempted from the climate change levy when landfill

16 Oct 2002 : Column 853

methane is so exempted? Furthermore, why in Germany are both types of methane exempted? Why do we not follow the same pattern?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the simple answer is that the Germans have got it wrong. There is a clear distinction between methane that is produced by landfill, which is entirely renewable, and methane that is produced by coal, which is not renewable. Therefore, if one included methane from coal, how does one keep coal from being renewable? Clearly, on that ground the position is in danger of becoming ridiculous because we would put everything in the category of renewables. That is why a line must be clearly drawn between those two sources of energy.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's replies, in which he stresses the importance of clean energy, will he explain to the House the logic behind the decision of his colleague, the Secretary of State, not to exempt British Energy from the climate change levy when British Energy, as a nuclear generator producing about one-fifth of the nation's electricity, makes no climate emissions at all?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to the Front Bench.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, after his distinguished performance in the House last night, I am sure that he will be equally distinguished on the Front Bench. The answer is that we have taken no final decision on British Energy; we have simply given it a loan up to a date in November. Those issues will be covered in the White Paper.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that methane is at least 20 times more noxious than the normal gases which people associate with power stations and with the clean technology that the Government are pursuing?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is correct, and that is why we made the change which I have mentioned to the House. However, I still do not believe that it makes a difference to the question of whether it is renewable.

Lord Elton: My Lords, does not the Minister's answer in regard to Germany make one wonder whether other countries in the European Community are better at getting it wrong than we are? Perhaps we should sometimes get it wrong in our own favour, too.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is always nice to hear praise from that side of the House of any country in the European Union.

16 Oct 2002 : Column 854

Zimbabwe: Dispossessed Farmers

2.56 p.m.

Lord Carrington asked Her Majesty's Government:

    Whether they are prepared to use the money, which under the Lancaster House agreement was to have compensated Zimbabwean farmers who sold their farms on a willing buyer-seller basis, to support those who have now been evicted without compensation and have lost all their possessions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Lancaster House agreement did not establish a specific fund to support land reform in Zimbabwe, nor did it commit the United Kingdom to pay compensation to dispossessed farmers. The UK Government have honoured the commitments they made. Those were to encourage international donors to help fund land redistribution; to provide technical assistance for resettlement schemes; and to provide aid for agricultural development projects and infrastructure.

Lord Carrington: My Lords, to use the time-honoured phrase, I am grateful to the noble Baroness—but only fairly grateful—for that disappointing reply. Under the Lancaster House agreement, it was envisaged that we would help the Zimbabwe Government and the farmers on a willing buyer-to-seller relationship. Does the Minister agree that in the present circumstances the Government are not depriving the Zimbabwe Government of anything, but are depriving the farmers of proper compensation?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord chaired the Lancaster House conference, so he will know the detail that was agreed at that time. We rallied donors to support the new Zimbabwe at independence and we were instrumental in setting up the Zimbabwe conference on reconstruction and development in 1981. At that conference, more than £630 million of aid was pledged. The first phase of land reform in the 1980s, which was partially funded by the United Kingdom, successfully resettled around 70,000 landless people on more than 2 million hectares of land.

The British contribution in terms of aid to Zimbabwe now stands at some half billion pounds in support since independence. Furthermore, £47 million of that was specifically targeted for land reform and approximately £100 million was budgetary support which could have been used for land reform.

I agree with the noble Lord about the need for further land reform. We want to see further reform, but we want to see a process that is transparent and meets the rule of law.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have many close relations who have lost their homes and their farms in Zimbabwe? Is she aware that

16 Oct 2002 : Column 855

my relations and other commercial farmers are dreadfully concerned about the future of the 350,000 farm workers and their 1¾ million dependants who now face being homeless and jobless and who will face hunger and even starvation? Will the Government bear the farm workers in mind and reassess the amount of humanitarian aid Britain gives to Zimbabwe?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, before I answer my noble friend's question, I should like, on behalf of the whole House, to extend our deepest condolences at Sir Garfield Todd's recent passing. Sir Garfield was a tireless campaigner against minority rule in what was then Rhodesia and a principled opponent of the tyranny now affecting the Zimbabwe that he worked so hard to help to build.

My noble friend Lord Acton is right in saying that we need to be concerned about the farm workers—many of whom are Zimbabwean but have not been able to claim Zimbabwean nationality—and their nearly 2 million dependants. The famine in Zimbabwe means that their situation will become even worse. We have pledged £32 million in humanitarian support, but we shall of course reassess that depending on the information we receive from the World Food Programme. My noble friend is right. The situation of those farm workers needs to be at the front of our minds.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is not my noble friend Lord Carrington entirely right, as one would expect? Did not the original independence constitution for Zimbabwe recognise that under-utilised land could be compulsorily purchased provided that adequate compensation was paid? That may have been under a previous government, but given that Zimbabwe is now under an illegitimate regime, full of atrocities, how can the present Government just wash their hands of that obligation?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, may wish to go back and look again at the Lancaster House agreement. The willing buyer, willing seller agreement covered the first 10 years, and the British government made very specific commitments. I have outlined to the House the amount of money raised at the 1981 donors' conference and the amount that successive British governments have given to the Government of Zimbabwe in bilateral support, some of which was in the form of budgetary aid that could have been used for land reform. What we have to remember is that we are dealing in Zimbabwe with a regime that is ruthless and does not care what happens

16 Oct 2002 : Column 856

to its own people. This is not about land, but about the breakdown of the rule of law and a regime that wants to stay in power whatever.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, is it not—

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister—

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Hughes is first.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page