Proceeding contribution from Hugh Bayley (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 24 March 2010. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe
The only thing with which I disagree is the use of "we". It is not for us but for the Government of Zimbabwe to bring that back. However, I know the hon. Gentleman well, and I am sure that that was a slip of the tongue. One matter that we examined in some detail in our report was Zimbabwe's dual land ownership law. Roughly 70 per cent. of land was originally commercially farmed, with a system of title, which brought with it the sort of benefit that the hon. Gentleman describes. Owners can use the equity in the land title to borrow for the purchase of inputs such as seeds and fertilisers and to pay for irrigation; when good legal title is lost, such benefits disappear. However, on the remaining 30 per cent. of the land—the so-called communal lands used largely by African farmers—an individual farmer does not have legal title and is therefore unable to gain the credit necessary to raise farm productivity. I would like a system of title to be established for land across Zimbabwe as a whole, but that of course is a matter for the Zimbabweans, not us.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 508 c101-2WH
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Development aid Land Human rights Farms Ownership Politics and government Reform Violence Zimbabwe
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-11 18:09:18 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633718
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633718
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_633718