HC Deb 05 July 1957 vol 572 cc1527-51

Order for Second Reading read.

2.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a non-controversial and I think a self-explanatory Measure. All hon. Members know the background of it, though I am sorry there are not more hon. Members here today taking an interest in the work of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation. This work is highly commendable; we all know the success that the Corporation has had.

I do not want to detain the House for any length of time, but I think that hon. Members who have made a study of the Report of the Royal Commission on Land and Population in East Africa will remember that the Royal Commission made favourable mention of the work of the Corporation. It commented that the Tanganyika experiments were operating with a degree of control and help to the African peasant far beyond anything previously considered in East Africa. At the initial stage the African tenant farmer was very intensively supervised, with the object of getting for him as high a yield as possible from his operations.

The Royal Commission commented that while it was far too early to form any opinion as to the success of these experiments it would be difficult to overestimate their importance, as they bore directly on a main need of East Africa, the application of managerial and technical knowledge, and of capital, in order to modernise the indigenous economy so that the people were finally left with both the trained ability and the experience with which to create their own capital for their own future development. Those words were written on the basis of observations made in 1953. It is not too early to make a modest assertion that ultimate success for these experiments is assured.

Hon. Members may wonder why we have to legislate for the seemingly simple matter of providing for a further period of five years funds which Parliament has already agreed should be devoted to this purpose. It would have been possible under the existing Colonial Development and Welfare Act to extend assistance to the Corporation by means of C. D. and W. schemes up to the end of the currency of the present Act in 1960. However, it was provided in the Act that monies made available to the Corporation up to the original terminal date, namely, 1st October this year, should be provided outside the ceiling of funds for general colonial development and welfare set by that Act.

Therefore, if we were not to modify the C. D. and W. Act, we should have to draw the remaining funds for the Corporation from within the total sum made available, thus reducing by that amount the possibility of allocating funds to other colonial purposes. To avoid this disadvantage alone might not justify seeking special legislative authority from Parliament.

On the other hand, we are satisfied that continued assistance to the Corporation is necessary and justified for two years beyond the currency of the present C. D. and W. Act. If we were to give the Corporation the assurance it requires of continued support over the whole of its new programme we should have to give it an undertaking either that Parliament would provide further C. D. and W. money after 1960 or would legislate specifically to provide further money to the Corporation after that date. Either course would have involved an assumption regarding the readiness of Parliament to do these things.

My right hon. Friend therefore felt that he owed it to this House to come before it with specific proposals in the form of the small Bill now before us to give to the Tanganyika Government and the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation the support and encouragement from Parliament which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that they deserve. In order to obviate any overlapping in legislation we have inserted Clause 1 (2) which rules out the provision of assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts after 30th September of this year.

That is all I want to say by way of explanation. Let me reaffirm that the object of the legislation is not to provide more money to sustain the Corporation than Parliament has earlier decided but to permit a little less than that sum to be made available over a longer period, in accordance with a programme which the Chairman of the Corporation, the Governor of Tanganyika and my right hon. Friend are satisfied will bring this successful undertaking to a satisfactory conclusion. I confidently commend the Bill to the House as a logical, sound and, I hope, generally agreeable Measure.

2.5 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones (Wakefield)

We welcome the Bill. I was glad to have the explanation from the Minister of the financial arrangements which it is now proposed to make.

The Bill revives the ghost of something which excited considerable Conservative propaganda seven or more years ago. The Corporation we are discussing owes its origin to the Overseas Food Corporation and to the consequences of the work of that Corporation. The work which the Overseas Food Corporation sought to do was of supreme importance to the developing life of East Africa. The Minister has endorsed that statement. We should remind ourselves that at the time we were not concerned merely in a period of shortage with the provision of edible fats under the groundnut scheme; we were also concerned with discovering how to bring into cultivation the marginal and sub-marginal land in East Africa in order that the standard of life of the people could be improved, and increased economic returns could be brought to a population which was rapidly increasing while its subsistence was steadily diminishing. Therefore the great experiment was made.

Was it possible to bring those tropical, arid lands to produce the foodstuffs necessary not only in Africa but elsewhere? Could new methods of cultivation be discovered as a result of research, experiment, pilot schemes and so on? Was collective mechanisation a possible method in these very arid and long-neglected lands? Perhaps it was an experiment, but looking at it objectively all of us must agree that it made some contribution to the economic life of Africa by the creation of public works and social services which otherwise would not have been made. It also brought to us a fund of scientific knowledge and technical information for future cultiva- tion and production for those lands which otherwise would not have been available.

That work is perpetuated by the Tanganyika Corporation which we are asked to assist this afternoon. It took over the undertaking of the Overseas Food Corporation. It is gratifying to know from the Minister that the Corporation has continued to do excellent work, so much so that we are now asked to advance money, outside the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, in order that the work should continue.

I agree, as does my party, that the work of the Corporation should continue and that it should be able to look ahead. It deserves no less attention from the Press than the Press was prepared to give to the ill-fated scheme which the Tanganyika Corporation now succeeds. We regard the work of the Corporation as of vital importance, We want to find the answers to these intractable problems in East Africa. We want to know how it is possible to bring reasonable conditions of life to the people in these territories. The expenditure of a little more money granted by this House will assist in an earlier solution of some of the difficult problems the answers to which it is very necessary should be found.

After all, it is one of the responsibilities of this country, with its overseas populations and territories, to spend money in trying to improve standards of living and make more humane life possible. Therefore, we are asked to grant money, even if this Corporation is carrying on the work of the rather ill-fated Corporation which it succeeds.

I was very anxious to know a little more about the Corporation's work. I wanted to discover more about its activities, its progress, how the money was being spent, whether it was likely to prove solvent and so on; but I must confess that there is singularly little information available about the Corporation. It may be the habit of the Colonial Office—it certainly was when I was a Minister there—to hide its light under a bushel, and the public knows very little about many of the great experiments which it has conducted and some of the very worth-while work which it has done. It is very difficult for the public to be persuaded to read anything about it. I searched the Reports of the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, the Report of the Government of Tanganyika to the United Nations, the Report of the Colonial Office itself and the Report of the Agricultural Department of Tanganyika, but I found very little indeed which could tell me about the Corporation and the kind of work which it was doing.

I heartily endorse the reference which the Under-Secretary of State made to the Report of the Royal Commission on East Africa. After all these researches I could find only three references, but they are of such interest and so informing that I should like to give the House the benefit of what I discovered.

First, in 1955–56, we are told: Large-scale experiments in mechanised and partly-mechanised agriculture were continued, and the African tenant-farmer schemes, in particular were being expanded. This information I discovered under the heading "Constitutional" and not under "Agriculture". There was another reference: Experiments in new forms of organising peasant farming have continued. Surveys have started on three schemes for settlement, one of which will be run as a tenant farming scheme…there was a further increase in the numbers of farmers on the three-tenant farming schemes of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation. In last year's Report, recently published, it is stated: Encouraging progress continues to be made by the Corporation in its various enterprises. I must confess that this is not a great deal of information there about the operations of the Corporation but it is significant.

Finally, in the Library of the House of Commons, there was placed this week the Report of the Corporation itself. I must say that I find it a most entrancing and encouraging Report, which justifies all the faith we had placed in the Corporation, and I should like to congratulate Mr. Grant Morris and his colleages on the excellence of the work they are doing. The Report tells of men's efforts to control and overcome environment, to make the bush and the desert flourish and to secure humane and more abundant life. It is a vigorous record of much trial and disappointment, as well as of success.

It includes campaigns against the tsetse fly and sleeping sickness; experi- ments with new machinery and ploughing; the trying out of new insecticides and excellent scientific work being done; surveys over big regions into water supplies, soil conditions, geological discoveries in anticipation of planned development; a ranching scheme where large-scale mechanised arable farms have proved unworkable; trying out new crops by pilot schemes, not only of groundnuts but of tobacco, soya beans and cashew nuts; and the establishment of Africans on their own farms in these tenant schemes and new settlements, which are so worth while and so important. The Corporation is also successful in the training of men and putting them on the farms, and using their former employees for excellent work in building up a sound core of cultivators in that part of the world.

In all this, the Corporation is creating and settling new types of trained workers for the difficult task of increasing the subsistence needs of the areas, discovering new techniques, surveying regions and conducting pilot schemes, in which it is working in the spirit of the groundnuts scheme, of which this Corporation is the successor.

We wish the Corporation all success in its work, and we are glad that its work is to continue. We believe it to be valuable and useful in the developing life of Africa, because it is a contribution to African life. Therefore, we have the greatest pleasure in welcoming the Bill, and we shall give it our whole-hearted support.

2.20 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

It is always a very great privilege to follow in debate the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) because we know that in all his contacts overseas he had great ideals in his time in office which he did his best to implement, and he always speaks with great sincerity. I also agree with him that whatever may have been lost in other ways the scientific knowledge gained was of infinite value.

I had the opportunity of visiting this area, especially the Kongwa district, in February, 1951. What was particularly striking was to realise how quickly in the short time between the closing down in 1950 and the restarting of another organisation the land, even though it had been fairly well developed, could return to scrub land. I therefore welcome this project very much and I think it should help in the development of the whole Territory of Tanganyika.

I was interested in reading the Report to note the increase in the number of African farms, and I thought that was very satisfactory. I wish to ask my hon. Friend if it is possible, in future, to envisage these Africans living in their homes and not just leasing them. If we have that object in view we can encourage them to cultivate their own land, and they will have a better interest in the project as they will feel they have a stake in their own country. I should like the Corporation to give them the opportunity of owning their own land in future.

I notice in the Report that there are no Asians with holdings there. A little time ago, we had the pleasure of receiving a deputation of the Tanganyika United Party and we were all impressed by the tact that that deputation, which was five in number, included one Indian, one European-Greek, two Africans and one Englishman. With the exception of the Englishman, none of them had left the Territory before. They came over here in the interests of the Tanganyika Territory. It seemed that this was the one Territory in Africa where there is already a very good basis for all races working together. I hope that in this area we shall see that this work is carried on and that it will not be just left to the European and African population.

I read in the Report, in page 15: The suspected labour shortage began to have its effect.… Later the Report says in page 33: Labour was slow in coming in at the beginning of the rains. I should like to know what action has been taken to form more villages where these people can live in communities and go out to work in the fields. I understand that groundnuts have been lost because of the lack of labour. The Report says: Groundnuts which remained in the fields for a considerable period were found to 'skin' and in many cases prolonged exposure to extremes of weather blackened them. I have a little knowledge of this subject, having grown them in a small way and I understand that one cannot leave groundnuts on the ground for a long time, once they have been dug up, because they rot quickly. I should like to know what steps are being taken to overcome this difficulty.

I suggest to my hon. Friend that perhaps it might be practical in the not too distant future to employ disabled and particularly blind people in this area. I am interested in the British Empire Society for the Blind, which is likely to change its name to the British Commonwealth Society for the Blind, and we have been very successful both in Uganda and Kenya with what are known as shamba schemes for blind workers. Through this means they have been enabled to support themselves and their families. This might be an ideal area for the continuation of such schemes, and I ask my hon. Friend to consider this. They are, perhaps, better suited for dealing with maize or the soya bean crops, which have been exceptionally good in this area.

I was interested to see in the Report that women are being employed in specific jobs and have been particularly successful in grading tobacco. I hope this work will be extended because I think it is far better that they should be earning independently than just working in the fields for their husbands.

I could not find any reference in the Report to the earnings of the employees. I should like to know if we could have some information about the average earnings, then we should get a little idea of the standard of living in that area. It was interesting to note the proportion of skilled workers to unskilled workers. That proportion of the former was exceptionally high and seemed to prove that there is difficulty in getting unskilled workers.

Finally, I should like to have information about the trial farms in the Rufiji area and also to be told what is meant by the phrase "trial farms". For what period is a trial and what is the type of farm?

I hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading, because I think that it will enable people in this Territory, which really began to be known to us by the travels of Livingstone, not so very long ago, to find encouragement, and it will help to meet the needs of Africans, in what I am certain will be one of the foremost areas in Africa in future.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I am quite sure the House has listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Devon-port (Miss Vickers). I have been quite envious of her because she visited this area and I have not had an opportunity of doing so. I was going to say that we do not always agree on issues discussed in this House, but she is one of the hon. Members on the opposite benches with whom I agree probably more often than most of her colleagues, and on this occasion I hope the Minister will reply to the specific questions she has put.

The hon. Lady raised the questions of the conditions of the labourers and reasons for shortage of labour and the opportunity for Asians to participate in this scheme. I want to emphasise that one of the important features of the scheme is that there is no racial discrimination in it. She mentioned the opportunities for women and the development of village communities. All those are practical items of very great importance, and I hope the Minister will be able to reply to the points raised.

It is not often that I can give wholehearted support to a proposal brought from the Colonial Office. Therefore, I am very delighted this afternoon, not only to give wholehearted support, but possibly more enthusiastic support than the Minister who has spoken, because I think he was too modest about the achievements of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation. The only thing which worried me a little was that while the financial support of this Government is to be continued for another five years, which one welcomes, the hon. Gentleman made the suggestion that the annual amount might be decreased.

Mr. Profumo

indicated dissent.

Mr. Brockway

I am sorry if I have got that wrong. It reassures me to find that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman on that point.

It has already been said that the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation has followed the failure of the groundnut scheme. I wish only to make a brief reference to that relationship. During the war there was the double front—the military front and the home front. On the home front, the problem of food was perhaps the most important issue that had to be faced. The groundnut scheme was a gamble, but many gambles had to be taken. Many gambles were taken on the military front and many of them failed. They resulted in loss of life and great destruction and they left nothing in their trail except the warning that we should not follow the same course again.

The groundnut scheme in Tanganyika, however, has left as a sequence the possibilities of great constructive activities which will be of value not only to Tanganyika, but to the whole of Africa. If the groundnut scheme itself failed, at least it has left these opportunities, which will be of such enormous importance to the agriculture of Tanganyika, of East Africa and of Africa as a whole. It is because I am impressed by the value of what has been done that I want to emphasise it even more strongly than the Minister has done in his speech this afternoon.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) described how he had made researches to try to get information about the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation. Many of us felt identity with him in what he said, because in our experience it is extraordinarily difficult to get the facts about many activities of the Colonial Office.

On this occasion, however, I seem to have been more fortunate than my right hon. Friend. Perhaps that is due to the fact that I have a very good research worker who helps me and who helps others who are interested in Colonial Territories. We have obtained from the Library the Report of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation.

Mr. Creech Jones

May I point out that it was because such information was not in the Library that I asked the Librarian to do his best with the Colonial Office to obtain a Report of the Corporation. That was done and, therefore, the book now in the possession of my hon. Friend is the Report which my pressure obtained.

Mr. Profumo

I ought to make it plain that it was not through anybody's pressure at all. I arranged to have the Report put in the Library at the earliest moment it was available. I would not wish it to be thought that we were hiding our lights under a bushel or were reluctant and had the Report forced from us. I am sure that hon. Members will accept my explanation.

Mr. Brockway

I was not for one moment suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield had been less astute than others in obtaining the Report. He took the initiative in getting it into the Library, and I thank him not only for that but for the many other services which he has given us concerning the Colonies.

If one reads the Report, one is stirred with enthusiasm for the work which the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation is doing. I emphasise it this afternoon because I consider it important, in view of all the propaganda which was conducted against the groundnut scheme, to underline the service which the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, which is the groundnut scheme's successor and was introduced by it, is giving to the whole cause of agriculture in Africa.

The first area whose work is described in the Report is the Transferred Undertaking. In that area, there are now 17,523 acres under crops. There are fifteen production farms and the main crops have proved satisfactory. Examination, investigation and experimentation are still being undertaken concerning large-scale farming. Because that problem is one about which every Colonial Government in Africa is concerned, the result of this experiment will be of great value to all the African Territories.

The second feature is the scheme for African tenants. I shall make a more detailed reference to the African Tenants Scheme, but I record at this stage that there are 148 holdings and that the extraordinary proportion of 138 of these holdings were successfully farmed last year.

Secondly, there is the area of the Urambo, where twelve large farms are leased to tenants. Again, the Report contains the remarkable tribute that eleven of those twelve large farms which are farmed by Africans were successful last year. Indeed, the Report becomes almost lyrical in its references. It speaks of the enthusiasm of the Africans for the farming which they are doing and it emphasises how they are convinced of its soundness and opportunity.

We have the encouraging fact that the twelve large farms which already exist are to be supplemented by twenty more farms during the coming year. In addition to the large farms, there are 64 tenants on smaller holdings. Again, the extraordinary proportion of 60 of the 64 tenant farmers farmed profitably last year. One would be happy if the same success could be reported of smallholdings in this country.

Thirdly, I want to refer to the Kongwa area, where there is specialisation in cattle ranching and where 6,364 head of cattle are now herded. Here again, there are nineteen farmers in the African Tenant Scheme who, according to the Report, enjoyed a particularly successful season, a net profit of £1,800 being recorded. Again—and one finds it difficult to reserve one's praise for these constructive efforts —50 more tenants have signed for the year 1956–57.

I want to add a word about the African Tenant Scheme, supplementing what the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport has said. One finds in the Report the reflection of the delight and enthusiasm of the African farmers, but one also finds that they desire greater security. In the Report we are promised a revised scheme for 1957–58. I wonder whether it is too early for the Minister to indicate to the House what is in the minds of the Corporation concerning that revised scheme. I am not certain that ownership, particularly of large farms, is the best method, but I ask the Minister, as he comes to deal with that revised scheme, also to have in mind the possibilities of co-operative farming, on the basis of security for a long period—as long, indeed, as good forming is carried out by these respective farmers.

I turn to the Rifiji Basin Survey Scheme, which is being conducted, I understand, on behalf of the Tanganyika Government. Its purpose is the conservation and use of water, the use of pumping, irrigation, and the establishment of trial farms. I notice that in the Report it is said that if those trial farms are a success planned settlement schemes are proposed. I wonder if the Under-Secretary of State could give us some indication of what the Corporation has in mind for the settlement schemes, and once more I ask him whether, in thinking about them, he will look at the examples of co-operative farming. He need go no farther than Tanganyika itself, where on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro there is the most wonderful African cooperative farming one can find in the whole Continent.

Last among these areas I come to the Ruvu Ranching Scheme, which is also done in co-operation with the Tanganyika Government. Here it is hoped to open up 78,000 acres within reasonable reach of Dar-es Salaam. This is an inspiring project, and if it is possible for the Under-Secretary of State to give us some details when he replies to the debate I am sure the whole House will hear of them with great interest.

The next matter I want to take up was mentioned by the hon. Lady, that of the staff and the conditions of the labourers. I was delighted to read in the Corporation's statement that it has consistently sought and seeks to avoid, in every possible way, any form of racial discrimination both in its terms of service and in its relationship with the staff. The Report shows that there are three grades of staff, the senior grade, with £900 per annum and above, an intermediate grade with from £450 per annum to £900, and a junior grade below £450. One is pleased to read that the graduation takes place solely by merit regardless of race or creed.

It would be interesting to be informed about these grades, particularly about the higher grades, how many Africans have graduated to them and how many Asians have graduated to them. This may be short notice to give of these questions, but if in Committee on the Bill or at a later stage we could have that information I think it would be of value.

Finally, I ask about the labourers, who, I suppose, may not be included in these three grade of the staff. What are their conditions? What are their wages? What are their terms of employment? What provision is made for their housing? What opportunities are there for the education of their children? The Report speaks of the difficulty of obtaining labour. Surely it is by suitable provision of these things that the supply of labour will be best encouraged.

As I said when I began, it is a very great delight on this occasion to be speaking in support of a Measure intro- duced by the Front Bench opposite and by the Colonial Secretary in particular, and I hope not only that this Bill will be carried but that all the hopes of success expressed in this Report will be realised in the coming five years.

2.45 p.m.

Major Patrick Wall (Hull, Haltemprice)

In view of the apologia of the groundnut scheme presented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), it ought to be said from these benches that the criticism against the Government of the day was not because of their wish to develop Tanganyika but because of the scale of the scheme they put into effect. As I want to keep this debate on a bi-partisan basis, I will add only that these criticisms seem to have been justified by the history of that project which led to the loss of £30 million of the taxpayer's money.

Mr. Brockway

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that that criticism applies to many gambles in war, and upon the military field, as well as upon the home front?

Major Wall

Yes, but there must be a reasonable basis for a gamble, and the criticism of the Government of the day was that such a basis did not exist.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

Am I not right in thinking that that operation took place in peace time, not war time, and that it was only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) who described that as a warlike operation?

Major Wall

I think my hon. Friend is quite right in that supposition. The groundnut scheme took place in the postwar period and not during the war. However, I do not want to go on discussing the groundnut scheme. I simply thought that that reminder as to the facts ought to be made from these benches.

The roots of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation having been in the groundnut scheme, it presumably thought it had to be very cautious in the future, and hence this Bill, for it wants financial stability for the next five years, stability which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, could not be obtained from the colonial development and welfare funds.

I think that this caution allied to the progress which has undoubtedly been made in Tanganyika is the best augury for the future.

There are three main areas, some of which have been referred to by some hon. Members. To add to the picture of the cattle raising scheme at Kongwa painted by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, I would emphasise the fact that nineteen of those African farmers he praised so rightly have shown a profit of between £70 and £200 a year which shows that good husbandry and industry do pay and that that is an incentive encouraging to all races in Tanganyika.

At Urambo, where tobacco is the main crop, there are not only the twelve African farms but two exceptionally large European farms which also made good profits and good progress, showing that good husbandry is not confined to any one race in Tanganyika.

I think that possibly one of the most important schemes is the one at Nachingwea, an experimental scheme for the production of groundnuts and soya beans. If the experiment succeeds it will help very much in developing similar projects for the rest of Tanganyika and it is vitally important that this should be done, and if there were no other reason this alone would induce me to support the Bill 100 per cent.

I read with great interest a letter in The Economist of 1st June written by someone representing the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, and I would quote one paragraph to the House: Although most of the farms are run by European managers with African labour, the problem of helping the African to rise above the limits of hoe cultivation is being tackled concurrently on an African Tenant Scheme. Here tenants farm holdings of 20–25 acres each under the general supervision of a European manager. I would reinforce the plea made from both sides of the House that when the scheme has been considered consideration should be given to allowing these tenants to take over the land themselves so that the recommendations of the Royal Commission may be brought into effect. It will be a very good example to the rest of Africa if we can later see these African farms, which have been developed so very successfully, handed over to the people who now farm them as tenants.

One question I would like to ask my hon. Friend is whether I am right in supposing that by 1962, when the Bill expires, the Corporation and the schemes run by the Corporation should be self-supporting. Is that the object for which we are working? If so, it is a very worthy object which should be supported on both sides of the House.

As to development in general in Tanganyika, I understand that only one-tenth of cultivatable land is at present under cultivation and that it is expected to expand agricultural production by approximately 5 per cent. per year. The Bill will undoubtedly help towards the realisation of this aim, but there are three main difficulties on which I should like to ask my hon. Friend one or two questions. The main difficulties seem to be water supplies, the tsetse fly, and communications.

Is something being done to improve the water supplies in the settled village areas? It seems to me that as these African farms become more productive and prosperous they can do something themselves to improve the water supply which is so vital to this arid area.

With regard to tsetse, both in Urambo and in Nachingwea, which are in the tsetse fly area, experiments are being carried out. Are those experiments successful? Do they provide good hope that we shall be able to overcome this scrouge in the very near future? If so, it will make a great difference to Tanganyika's development as an agricultural country.

As to communications, what is needed so very much is a railway to open up the southernmost part of Tanganyika and to exploit the coal and minerals that exist to the north-east of Lake Nyasa. A railway that would connect with the Rhodesias would help to open up more agricultural land which, if the tsetse scourge could be overcome, would become productive, and so raise the standard of living of the people. But all this requires capital. Every time we have a debate on East Africa the question of capital crops up. Tanganyika needs it very badly. At the Convention of the United Tanganyika Party last year a sum of £100 million in ten years was spoken of as being essential to the future agricultural and commercial development of Tanganyika. Yet we find that the recent sugar project at Kilumbero designed to open up 60,000 acres for sugar production fell down or did not mature because of lack of capital. A railway was required costing £3¾ million, but that capital could not be found and the scheme was abandoned, with the consequent and unfortunate effect on the standard of living of the people of all races in Tanganyika.

Capital, governmental, and probably even more so from private enterprise, is the important requirement in East Africa. It cannot be emphasised too often that capital will be directed to States where there are stable political conditions. Tanganyika has given a good example. There is parity between the races among the elected members of the Legislative Council. The racial atmosphere has been extremely good but there have been stirrings just recently of inter-racial strife, due to one party asking to go too fast. The corollary, of course, must not be that the other party asks to go too slow.

Most hon. Members will have welcomed the recent letter in The Times and the memorandum from the United Tanganyika Party asking for a bipartisan approach in this country to the problems of Tanganyika and urging that those problems should be considered on their merits. The debate today has shown complete agreement on both sides of the House with the objects of the Bill, which are to open up the agricultural parts of Tanganyika, to kill the scourge of the tsetse fly and so to raise the standards of all races in Tanganyika.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

I rise to support the Bill and pay my tribute to the work of this wholly admirable Corporation. It is largely because of the success of the steady and scientific work of this organisation that I thought it was a little unfortunate to link it in debate with what had been done by the ill-fated Overseas Food Corporation, which came into existence two or three years after the end of the Second World War. I do not wish to be controversial, but there is a great difference between the performances of the two organisations. Unlike its predecessor, the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation is moving experimentally and cautiously with pilot schemes. It has acted in close concert with the Tanganyika Government and its agricultural advisers and it has had its feet on the ground from the very beginning.

Mr. Fenner Brockway

Would hon. Members opposite not agree that the groundnut scheme was carried out under the pressure of need for butter and fats in this country and that it was in that sense a gamble to deal with a very critical situation?

Mr. Braine

I would not quarrel with one word of what the hon. Member has said. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) spoke with great feeling and I thoroughly agreed with every word of his speech. I know that he would agree with me when I say that our primary duty here should be to concern ourselves not merely with a shortage of butter and fats for the people of the United Kingdom but with the long-term interests of the people in the territories concerned. I readily concede that behind the grandiose groundnuts scheme was the idea that in meeting our own need we should create conditions which would be helpful to the people of the East African Territories. Indeed, the scheme was to provide a short cut to prosperity for them. It was to be the means whereby primitive peoples were to be brought from a shifting cultivation system into a modern economy in the shortest possible space of time.

All I would say today in considering this Bill is that we are rightly paying tribute to an organisation which appears to have learned from the lessons of that failure. Whereas the concept of the Overseas Food Corporation was forced through under the pressure of events against the advice of many of those highly qualified in African agriculture, in Tanganyika and outside it, the present scheme seems to command the full approval and support of everybody in that country.

Mr. Creech Jones

I would like to say a word about the inauguration of the groundnut scheme, because it was my privilege to consult almost every knowledgeable authority, every scientific authority, and large numbers of commercial and financial interests, people experienced in Africa and in African agriculture, the Development Council, the Colonial Office and the Conservative Party too. All were unanimous that the late Labour Government should drive ahead as fast as it possibly could, not only to meet the deficiencies in edible fats in this country at the time, but also to discover the answer to some of these needs in regard to the cultivation of marginal and sub-marginal lands. It was done with the full endorsement of almost every authority which could be approached at that time.

Mr. Braine

With respect, that is merely a reiteration of the need of the time, with which nobody quarrels. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman need not protest too much, because one of the weaknesses of the scheme was that the Corporation in question did not come under his ultimate control but under the control of the Minister of Food. In fact, I cannot help but feel that if the Corporation had come under the eagle eye of the right hon. Gentleman the story might have been a little different, since we all know his deep concern and regard for the interests of the people in the Colonies. I think that the way in which that scheme was developing, particularly in its later stage, was something which should have caused him, and probably did, a great deal of pain, and regret that he had not got the power to deal with that. However, Mr. Speaker, you would quickly call me to order if I went too far along that road—

Mr. Speaker

I was about to remark that while this history may be of value in this discussion, we are dealing with the present Bill.

Mr. Braine

I stand rebuked, Sir. You are quite right. We are concerned with the present Bill, and I want to say personally how grateful I was, as I am sure was every hon. Member on this side of the House, to the right hon. Gentleman for the bi-partisan spirit with which he approached the problem today. If there is any territory in the Colonial Empire that needs a bi-partisan approach to its manifold problems it is Tanganyika, because it is a Trust Territory the future of which is not entirely in our hands. There are special circumstances here, and because those uncertainties prevail there is a special responsibility and obligation resting upon the parties in this House to ensure that we avoid doing or saying anything which may be unhelpful to the growth of confidence in Tanganyika.

I would ask my hon. Friend when he replies to answer one or two questions about the extent to which the activities of this Corporation are geared to the long-term development needs of the territory. I have had a look at the report, it is very good, but I join with those who say that there is a general lack of information in this country about Tanganyika. That is a pity. I remember that when I was in Dar-es-Salaam some two years ago the Governor said to me it was a pity that Tanganyika was so little discussed in this country. He said that while it was an advantage not to be regarded as a trouble spot, it was a disadvantage not to be in the news from the point of view of encouraging people to think in terms of investing money, settling in the territory, or taking an interest in its development. So I would like my hon. Friend to tell us to what extent the activities of the Corporation are being geared to the long-term needs of the territory for commerce and social development.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) raised a most valid point, one which I have raised on several occasions during the past few years. What is being done to encourage individual ownership of holdings? I agree that one should not be dogmatic about this since, after all, the Corporation is engaged in experimental and explanatory work. But here is one part of East Africa where it is possible to experiment, where about 90 per cent. of the population are crammed into a quarter of the territory because of the present of tsetse and the lack of water. Given progress in the conquest of tsetse and the extension of water supplies, here is one part of Africa where I would have thought it possible to make rapid progress in transforming the social life of the people and where we could try every kind of experiment—the leasehold system, co-operative farming and giving men a stake in the land through individual ownership. I should like to know to what extent experiments in that direction are taking place through the medium of the Corporation.

We have heard from various speakers in the debate something about the functions of the Corporation and the activities which it is carrying out. If anyone looks at a map of Tanganyika who has a glimmering of understanding of the considerable economic potential of the territory, his eye travels almost automatically to the south-west corner where lie great mineral deposits. What is being done to open up territory by settlement through which a railway must sooner or later pass linking the heart of the mineral bearing lands of Tanganyika and the northern part of Rhodesia with the Indian Ocean? Has the Corporation that in mind?

I suppose that Tanganyika is unique in another respect. Here is the one multiracial territory in Africa with no real racial problem. Looking at Africa as a whole, one can say that here is a territory where the relations between the races appear to be harmonious, and where there is no reason why they should not continue to be so. I should like to know to what extent the Corporation is likely, through its activities, to encourage racial collaboration. It seems to me that if the three races work together in this part of Africa and make a success of this particular instrument, it can have an enormous influence for good over a far wider field.

Those are the questions to which I should like answers. I warmly commend the Bill. I believe that the approach made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield and all who have spoken today is a happy augury for the future of the territory.

3.8 p.m.

Mr. Profumo

If I might, by leave of the House, speak again, I should like to begin by saying that it is a happy experience for me to be at the Dispatch Box and find not a murmur against the propositions that I am putting to the House. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend, who is engaged on very pressing business elsewhere, has not been able to experience this. I am glad that there has been general commendation from all sides of the House.

I was extremely interested to hear the generous speech of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), with all of which I fully agreed. I hope that it did not appear to be discourteous to him or the House that in my opening remarks I did not go into any greater detail. I had regard to the hour and that this was Friday afternoon and I believed that all hon. Members—there were very few of them in the Chamber at that moment—fully understood the reasons for the Bill and knew the work of the Corporation. Consequently, I felt that hon. Members did not require a long Second Reading speech from me. What I did not say was not omitted because I wished to omit it. Indeed, other hon. Members have made up for it and have done it better than I could have done it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), in a most thoughtful speech, put some questions to me. She asked whether African tenants could buy their farms. This will depend on the development of land tenure policy in the Territory as a whole. I cannot go further than that this afternoon. I took the point made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) about co-operative farming, and I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman said. I am glad to tell the House that there is no statutory bar of race to an Asian or any other Tanganyikan being accepted by the Corporation as a tenant. I wish lo put that on record.

With regard to villages, of course more labour is required at the planting and cropping periods, and as the people who like to come to do this work wish to work the rest of the year in their own home areas, the problem becomes slightly difficult, but the Corporation is looking into arrangements for a reliable supply of labour. I hope that the Corporation will give sympathetic attention to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport made about employing blind people. I have noted that and I am very glad that with her experience of this work she should have made that plea on this occasion.

Details of wages levels are not immediately available, but I will either write to hon. Members concerned about the matter, or deal with it at a later stage of the Bill. If it suits the convenience of hon. Members, I shall be only too glad to take up these points later. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough at one moment seemed to misunderstand what I had said about the annual amount to be spent decreasing. I can explain that in more detail. I intended to say that as the scheme became more self-supporting, the need for subsidy would decline year by year towards the end of the experiment and I expect that by 1962 the scheme will have become entirely self-supporting. That is the object.

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough and my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport talked about the settlement schemes. Those are not among the undertakings which the Bill seeks to continue to support. Those schemes are Tanganyika Government schemes on which the Corporation is employed by that Government as an agent, but I am sure that the Tanganyika Government will be appreciative of the interest shown in these schemes by the House this afternoon.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) raised one or two matters which I will try to answer, the first being about water supplies. I can assure the House that I have myself raised this topic with the Chairman of the Corporation who has assured me that these needs are met adequately from dams, wells, and bore-holes which the Corporation has arranged to construct in accordance with the circumstances of the different areas.

My hon. and gallant Friend also inquired about the progress of ridding affected areas of tsetse fly. This is a very important matter. Kongwa is a fly-free area so there the problem does not arise. The Corporation has, however, incurred very considerable expenditure on tsetse fly control, especially in Urambo, with marked success. The Corporation is hoping to expand this feature of the scheme in the light of the experience it has gained.

My hon. and gallant Friend asked a question about railways, but at the same time supplied the answer. This is a problem of capital expenditure and it was a great disappointment to my right hon. Friend that we could not find immediately the £4½ million which would have been required to build a railway down into the Kilombero Valley in conjunction with a scheme for the large-scale production of sugar. The project was very promising and fully acceptable to my right hon. Friend, but the Tanganyika Government could not feel that from the resources in sight they were justified in allocating such a large sum at this time to that under- taking. I am sure that this is something which has to come in the course of time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), in one of his typical speeches, raised various issues. Perhaps the most important question he asked was whether the Corporation's work was geared to the long term development of the Territory. The Corporation has a very important part to play, both in conducting this experiment which we have been discussing and which will form the basis of future development of all sorts, similar and not entirely similar, in the Territory, and also as an instrument to conduct the very important agriculture development schemes which are opening the frontiers of productivity in the whole Territory. I am sure that my hon. Friend was on to a very good point there. That is one of the reasons why I commend the Bill to the House.

Other points were raised which I shall do my best to answer at a later stage. In closing, perhaps I may return to one point. We have been uncontroversial so far, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will forgive me for mentioning this, but I would not like the House to think that by my speeches today, or by commending the Bill to the House, Her Majesty's Government are giving an endorsement to what the groundnut scheme did. That would be wrong. The work of the present Corporation is different, both in scale and objective, from the original groundnut scheme. The start with, that scheme was run by the Government directly. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will acquit me of discourtesy if, rather naturally, I say it was run by a Government which I, at any rate, did not think was very efficient.

At all events the scheme, although it may have had a good genesis in the minds of hon. Members opposite, was a failure. It was really a tragedy, and the expense was absolutely staggering. This scheme, run by the Corporation, has already proved a success, and if hon. Members on both sides, with the speeches they have made commending it, will give the Bill a Second Reading now and be as friendly about it in its later stages, the message will go out from the House which was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he opened, namely, that we have confidence in the Corporation and in its work, and in our view the development of this Territory will be greatly improved as a result of the schemes now being run by the Corporation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Committee upon Monday next.