HC Deb 08 April 1971 vol 815 cc757-68

3.32 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Dormand (Easington)

It is significant that a matter of such importance should be raised by a back-bencher, an Opposition back-bencher at that; and furthermore raised at an end of term Adjournment debate, when it should have been introduced by the Government during their ten months of office. The core of my case today is that the Government are not treating this subject with the urgency it warrants. The Minister will probably be aware that there was a debate in another place on this subject two months ago, the content and quality of which was of the highest order. It was a debate which could be commended to Members of both Houses.

I do not deny that the Government are aware of the problem and are doing something about it. They are represented on the Population Commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council, the World Health Organisation, U.N.E.S.C.O., and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They also participate in the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, and in 1971–72 they will be giving about £1 million for family planning and population control generally. The Government in addition have agreed to participate in the United Nations World Conference on Population in 1974. When one considers the magnitude of the problem facing the world today, it is clear that we and in fairness it must be said many other Governments are not making the contribution which they should make. They are only shadow boxing.

To give the background of the situation I must quote some statistics but I will keep them to the minimum. In 1650 the estimated population of the world was 545 million. I am not sure how the population was counted in those days but I have found this from my researches. Up to that time population growth had been very slow. A hundred years later in 1750 the figure had increased to 728 million, by 1850 to 1,121 million and by 1950 it had more than doubled to 2,515 million. These are the most astonishing figures which have the gravest implications for mankind.

By 1961 the world population was estimated to be increasing at a rate of 1.7 per cent. If this trend continues it will mean that there will be more people in existence in the next 50 years than there were in the whole of human history before 1961. The increase which may be expected over the remainder of this century alone will be more than the whole world's population in 1960. The statisticians say that this is inevitable. I am not sufficient of an expert in these matters to know that, but they assure us that that is the case. The sources to which I have referred for my figures are generally in agreement.

If I take the last set of figures and relate them to this country it will make the position more vivid. We are assured by the statisticians on population that our present population of 54 million will increase to 67 million by the end of the century. That position cannot be avoided. This country's growth rate of 0.3 per cent. per annum is one of the lowest in the world. We have almost stabilised. To bring the matter right down to a question of daily occurrence, this represents an increase of 800 human beings a day in this small island. That shows the House that the situation is of some consequence.

This brings home to us more forcibly the need for more food, houses, hospitals, services, and so on. Before I came to this House I was the education officer for a local authority and I remember my panic, three or four years ago, when I discovered that the birth rate had increased rather alarmingly in my area. As a result, I had to provide a new school for about 200 children. I place that on record as the most frightening and difficult thing that I have ever done. Relating that situation to this country as a whole and then to the world, we see how serious it is.

These then are the figures. There are two reasons for this situation. First, man has increased his mastery over the environment and, secondly and perhaps more important, medical skill has increased out of all recognition. Nowadays people in all countries live much longer, and the infant mortality rate has improved out of all recognition. In some countries—not so many as one would think—the birth rate remains very high, but I shall not dwell on that aspect because I am concerned mainly about the implications of the various factors.

The most important question whether it will be possible to feed such an increase in population. Many will answer, "Yes". They will do so on the basis that history has shown that when this kind of crisis arises man, from the sheer necessity of the situation, produces a solution. There is some historical evidence for this. But the topic that we are now debating is unique, and those who answer "Yes" to the question that I have just asked display unwarranted and dangerous optimism, involving the lives of millions of people.

I do not believe that there will be mass starvation, although I am not sure that anyone, however expert he may be in these matters, is in a position to be categoric about it. I believe that there will be localised famines from time to time, and malnutrition on a vast scale. These will be terrible experiences for the human race. I also believe that the effects of over-population will take more sinister forms. At worst, they will take the form of localised wars and, at best, the form of disturbances.

It is unfortunate that the example I quote relates to the tragic events now taking place in East Pakistan. The Minister may have seen the article in last Sunday's Observer which said: The haunting nightmare of over-population has arrived. That newspaper's distinguished Commonwealth correspondent Colin Legum wrote an article which brought home the horror which may be repeated in other parts of the world. He wrote this: East Pakistan is the first place on earth where the haunting nightmare of the population explosion has already become a reality. It lies at the root of this crisis. The Bengalis are packed 1,200–1,500 per square mile compared with the 600 density figure of Belgium, the world's next most heavily populated area. Their numbers increase by 6,000 a day. He goes on to tell the most astonishing fact. The half million souls who perished in the East Pakistan floods last November were replaced in number with in three months of that disaster taking place.

Who can fail to be moved by such a terrifying story? Who can deny that this is one of the two or three major problems facing mankind and who can deny the need for immediate action? John Donne's words were never more apt than in this context: And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. This is everyone's concern, the concern of every Government in the world. It is a fact that the biggest problems of population growth are in the under-developed countries, which adds to the difficulties of the richer countries who in my view have a moral responsibility to help. Direct aid from the richer countries to the poorer countries will be regarded, however incorrectly, with the gravest suspicion. Some of the suspicions might be well-founded in view of the motives which have been produced by some of the so-called developed countries.

I submit that the rôle of the United Nations in this matter or any of the international agencies is of vital importance. I would like to place on record the leadership given by the World Bank on this question of over-population and in particular the leadership shown by Robert McNamara, President of the World Bank. He is perhaps the world figure showing the greatest awareness of this problem. The channelling of aid through the international agencies should do much to allay the suspicions of the recently independent countries. As an American senator is alleged to have said, we do not see "World Bank Go Home" chalked on the walls.

The international agencies have the prime task of producing more food and new types of food. I need not dwell on the magnificent work being done by some scientists notably Dr. Borlang. When we think that the rice yield per acre in India is less than one-third of that in Japan we begin to see the enormity of the problem. Research is slow and expensive and the British Government should give till it hurts. We have a special expertise not to say compassion and can make a vital contribution, a unique contribution, to this problem.

It seems inevitable that any solution to the problem of increasing population must include birth control. It is evident that this will give rise to further problems by way of ideological and religious objections to family planning. It goes without saying that such views must be respected but if some compromise cannot be reached the future is indeed bleak.

It is for these reasons in particular that I welcome the holding of the world population conference in 1974. Family planning must inevitably be one of the main items on the agenda at that conference, and one hopes that at least the basic differences will be solved, however optimistic that may seem at the moment.

The Minister will remember that when I put down a Parliamentary Question to him two or three weeks ago asking whether he would seek to have the Government organise or initiate a world conference on the topic, his reply was that one was already arranged for 1974. That reply exactly illustrates my point that the Government are not showing the urgency they should. Why 1974? Why not this year or, at the latest, next year? I realise that international conferences must be organised even from the physical point of view, quite apart from the papers, and so on, that go to make up such a conference, but to accept that a problem like this can be dealt with in three years' time shows a great lack of urgency.

I recently saw the Secretary of State for the Environment on our North-East television channel, when he said: 'When you know something has to be done, the sooner it is done the better. Those are wise words, in my view, and I hope that the Minister will have a chat with his colleague to see whether they can be related to this problem, because there seems to be an awareness of a problem not only here but in many countries, but little seems to be done about it.

I make the plea to the Government to ignore the increasing clamour of voices calling for the abolition of family allowances. The argument that such allowances encourage the population explosion is quite without foundation. In those countries which have such welfare facilities as, for instance, hospital care, maternity allowances, medical care—and family allowances themselves—the families are no greater than they are in, notably, the United States of America where the allowances are not made.

It is more than 30 years since Lord Boyd-Orr made my hair stand on end with some of his predictions of what might come about because of the population explosion. If little else has happened since that time, at least the world is aware that there is a major problem to be solved. In the last decade, some 40 countries have either supported or adopted a population policy or programme. There are at least six international organisations dealing with the problem, and this year the United Nations has recommended the setting up of a world population institute—in my view, a significant proposal. One hears whispers, and perhaps the Minister will say something, that the Government are interested in having the institute in this country. That would be more than a gesture that the Government and the country are prepared to have a physical symbol of their concern about the expanding world population.

However laudable the activities of these bodies are one comes back every time to the need to devote more resources to them. The world population programme at the moment requires 170 million dollars: its currnt revenue falls far from that at 35 million dollars. Mr. Macnamara said recently that if only there were only a 5 per cent. shift from arms to development we would be within sight of the Pearson target for development assistance.

The British Government should take the lead in trying to achieve this shift. As I have said, our aid for family planning and population control will amount to £1 million for 1971–72 out of a total of £245 million. I am aware that that £1 million represents double the present contribution, and I congratulate the Minister and the Government on that large increase. Nevertheless, it is really trifling compared even with our strained resources, and certainly with world needs. I plead with the Government to give further thought to the matter. I am sure that a substantial increase will receive not only widespread support on this side of the House, but from many men and women in this country.

Many people feel that money could and should be diverted from other programmes—for example, the space programme, however useful and laudable it might be in other directions. Never was there a greater need for a reassessment of the financial priorities involved.

The problems associated with population control are not peripheral to man's existence; they are fundamental to it. Some progress has been made, but it is impossible to be optimistic about the future. We may already be too late. But if we cannot be optimistic, we need not despair. There is certainly time and opportunity for Britain to take the moral leadership in the international attempt to solve this most serious of problems.

3.51 p.m.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood)

I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is grateful, to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) for having drawn our attention to what I assure him I recognise as possibly the most urgent problem in the world. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I welcome the interest which he has been taking in this subject by putting down a number of Questions, one of which, as he reminded us, I answered a short time ago.

I repeat my rejection, which I offered to the hon. Gentleman some time ago, of any charge of complacency. If my credentials have to be examined in any way, although I am not in favour of recommending anyone to read past speeches which I have made in the House of Commons—most of them are better buried deep in the Library—I draw attention to a speech which I made in May, 1968, when I dwelt, as the hon. Gentleman has this afternoon, on the immensity of the problem and the need to tackle it.

There was a very important debate on this subject in another place a short time ago. Both the hon. Gentleman and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Snow that, in a sense, we all from time to time tend to fall into the danger of complacency because, rather naturally and for obvious reasons, we think that there are other important problems, which we all recognise, when we think about them, are in fact less important than the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.

The hon. Gentleman did not make a long speech. However, while he was on his feet, I think, if my mathematics are correct, that about 5,000 new babies were born in the world. This is a measure of the problem.

The hon. Gentleman quoted the statistics and said that there would be a certain doubling of the world population by the end of this century. He also expressed concern for this country. I should do so, too. However, he will recognise that my responsibilities relate mainly to the developing countries where the dangers are obviously far greater and the problem much less easy to solve.

To put the hon. Gentleman's definition of causes in other words, I merely say that mankind now has the power and the will to control the death rate; it has the power, but not the will, to control the birth rate. This is why we face these difficulties.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the consequences would be. I believe—I may be wrong—that life, even if the world population did double by 2000 A.D., would probably still be sustainable; but what concerns me is that I can see in those circumstances precious little room for any improvement whatsoever in living standards. I can foresee the world continuing over the years to come without any hope of improvement, a grim and precarious struggle for existence, and this does not give me any pleasure at all.

The hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. McNamara and expressed his admiration for him, which I entirely share. Mr. McNamara said: No achieveable rate of economic growth will be sufficient to cope with an unlimited proliferation of people on our limited planet. This again expresses the problem. Unless we find some means of controlling this expanson, we shall—to adapt a phrase of Lord Canning a long time ago—have to call in the old world of famine, disease and war in order to redress the imbalance of the new. These are really the alternatives that one is left with—either famine, disease and war on the one side, or some method of population control on the other.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was probably unlikely—here we seem to be moving closer together—that we should be faced with mass starvation. I am glad he said that because I thought he exaggerated a little time ago when he talked about the prospect of millions of deaths from starvation. None of us can tell. My own assessment is that there would certainly be a number of deaths from lack of food; there are more likely to be many millions of people with too little food.

I had an opportunity recently of visiting the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, and then I saw in Indonesia shortly after the effect of these new strains of rice being grown and the far greater yield. I reflected, as I have already said earlier, that possibly the production of food in the world may keep pace in the kind of way that it does at the moment with an increase of population, but that the real danger to human health and human advancement would be the continuing grinding poverty for which I see, with the population increase, very little hope of relief.

The hon. Gentleman will agree that it is extremely difficult for any of us to look with certainty into a very uncertain future. We know that in many of the developing countries there are considerable reserves of metals and natural energy. We know that there may be a number of new discoveries and substitutes. We know that the inventiveness and adaptability of the human race is very considerable. There may, for all we know, be vast untapped reserves and resources in the oceans themselves which cover a very large part of the world's surface.

Therefore, we cannot tell what the future holds. But the best information that any of us can receive at present, and to which we have access, leads one on to the conclusion that the likely course of population increase will place the world in very considerable economic difficulties unless we can find some means of controlling it.

The hon. Gentleman expressed disappointment—and he again expressed disappointment this afternoon—at my reply that there was going to be a world population conference in 1974. I pointed out that there would be various regional conferences leading up to it. I should now like to point out that apart from these regional conferences on population, there are in train a number of Food and Agriculture Organisation studies which are reasonably optimistic, as I hope I have been, about the possibility of food production. Also, there are studies by the International Labour Office which are a great deal less optimistic about employment opportunities in the future, and the I.L.O. has launched a programme to help to deal with the extra 225 million people who will need jobs not in the year 2000 but in 1980, nine years ahead.

If I felt that a world conference on population would provide the longed-for solution to our population problem, I should certainly press for it before 1974, and if I felt that a debate in the House of Commons would provide all the answers, I should ask my right hon. Friend the Lord President if we could have one after Easter. But the problems are perfectly well known, and they are being tackled, as I think the hon. Gentleman recognises, not only by the developing countries themselves but by a number of nations which provide aid and by international organisations as well.

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that it is not more talk but the process of patient persuasion which will make an impression upon these problems, which we all recognise. There are some Governments who are still not convinced of the need or of the benefits to be drawn from a policy of population control. As the hon. Gentleman said, they may be influenced by political, religious or racial reasons, and some, I think, are influenced by economic assessments which I myself believe to be mistaken.

At this moment, most Governments in Asia are now convinced of the necessity of population control, although many Governments in Africa and in Latin America are not so convinced. Some, as the hon. Gentleman said, are deeply suspicious of the motives of ourselves and other donor nations. If I may say so, I do not think that it helps the cause to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman did, that they are right in being suspicious of our motives. Our motives, the motives of this Government and of Great Britain itself, are, I hope, entirely disinterested and aimed only at decreasing the dangers which we can all see ahead.

Three-quarters of the population in the developing world live in countries with official population policies. This in itself is quite encouraging for it obviously offers some hope for the future. What is discouraging is that only a tiny fraction of those living in those countries are reached by family planning education and services. This, therefore—I emphasise it again—is the task, and no amount of talk will of itself achieve it.

We and other nations are not only prepared to help in this patient persuasion, but we are prepared to devote increasing resources to the tackling of these problems. The hon. Gentleman said that little was being done. He generously recognised that we are now providing over £1 million, double what we were providing last year. To put it in another way, our direct aid to international organisations, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the I.P.P.F., has multiplied ten times in three years, to over £1 million. It may give the hon. Gentleman some encouragement for the future to know that we are ready to increase it further if we are satisfied that more money can be well spent.

Also—again, I think that the hon. Gentleman will probably agree—we should like, if it were required of us, to increase our present modest programme of bilateral aid—modest for reasons which are obvious to most of us. We recently introduced special terms which we hope will stimulate more requests.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about our attitude to the Population Institute. I should be most prepared to continue discussions with those concerned with the Institute who might be interested in its making its home in this country, and the Government would support my doing so.

As in all development, we are faced by the human difficulty. The difficulty is not the shortage of funds and not the shortage of interest in this country, but the shortage of trained personnel on the ground where they are needed, and the problem of persuading millions of people to change their whole attitude and adopt a code of behaviour which in many cases seems to be very strange to them. We are in a vicious circle, recognising that birth control would be more acceptable if individual economic circumstances improved, but knowing that there is little hope of improvement while living standards are held down by the population expansion. I am encouraged, because I feel that many people are beginning to see reasons for having smaller families. We can certainly make resources available to make wider persuasion easier, and are prepared to do so, but the difficulty is that the persuasion itself is and must be the responsibility of Governments and people in developing countries, and of the family planning associations which we support through the I.P.P.S., for which last week I was glad to be able to join in helping to launch a campaign for further funds in this country.

These problems will not be solved by conferences and more talk, by preaching either to the converted or those still unconverted. What is urgently necessary, and is the only means of solving the problems that face us, is patient work from the countries concerned backed up by the necessary resources. The Government and this country are determined to play a full part in this international effort.