SUKKUR BARRAGE SCHEME. (Hansard, 7 March 1923)

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL)
My Lords, I entirely agree with one observation that fell from my noble friend behind me; I mean his reference to the vast size and importance of this great irrigation scheme. It embraces, as he said, something like five and a third million acres in Sind, three and a third million acres of which will be new cultivation, while the cultivation of the remaining two million acres will, if the scheme is successful, be vastly improved. I understand that the desire of my noble friend is that this scheme should be once more examined by experts. My noble friend returns to the charge after, I think, no less than one and a quarter years' meditation on the subject. I think it was as long ago as that when he made the same proposal. My noble friend has a great love of experts, and wishes to pile expert on expert, but he has not yet told your Lordships that this scheme was examined by experts in the year 1913, and that it was in consequence of that examination that various alterations were made in it. That is not the whole story, because since that time different portions of the scheme have been submitted again and again to the most close and searching observation, so that 294 when the scheme finally comes out, it emerges from the fire of controversy and discussion. And yet I understand that my noble friend wishes to plunge it once more into the disturbance of fresh discussion and renewed controversy.
Why should we submit the scheme to this fresh investigation? I believe it has been stated before that the only reasons which would induce the Government of India or myself to order a fresh investigation would rest upon the fact that we were not satisfied with the advice of the experts, or that there was some disagreement among the experts themselves. Among those who are advising the Government of India and among those who are advising the local Government of Bombay there is no such disagreement. On the contrary, there is general agreement. Why then should we disturb this harmony of agreement, not always attained concerning the schemes presented in India, by ordering some new examination? The noble Lord's request is based on the fact that two or three gentlemen who held high positions in irrigation Departments in India, but who are no longer in close touch with the facts, and who are no longer serving in India, have, in some respects only—and, I think, if you examine it, in varying respects—for the last few years disagreed with some points of the scheme. I really think there can be no end to these investigations if past-masters of the art who express some criticism of those who are responsible in India for this scheme are to prevail upon us to order fresh examinations.
May I remind my noble friend that there were critics and experts who criticised the proposals of Sir Christopher Wren, somewhat severely some centuries ago? If my noble friend had had his way probably the great dome of St. Paul's would never have been built, while my noble friend was marshalling all his experts in order to criticise it afresh. I would like to ask where are you going to get these impartial experts? It is well known that India leads the world in the matter of irrigation, and if you were going to seek anywhere in the world for persons who should judge irrigation works, you would go to India. Therefore, you would be going to the same gentlemen to criticise their own operations.
I was going to suggest to my noble friend that the time had come for action instead of for fresh criticism, because this 295 scheme has already been a long time under discussion. The question of finance is, of course, of the greatest importance, in two respects—first, as to what the ultimate cost of the great undertaking is going to be—whether in the nature of twelve and a half millions or so—eighteen to twenty crores of rupees—and, secondly, as to the productiveness of the scheme. On these questions there has been a great deal of investigation in India, and of correspondence between India and the India Office, during the last year. There is a further question as to the raising of the money in India. As my noble friend knows, very large sums are now being raised by the Government of India for bringing the railways up to date, and it becomes a question of difficulty how these large sums are to be raised. I hope, however, it may soon be possible to arrive at some conclusion on the subject.
In answer to the last part of the Question, I am afraid there are no further Papers that I could, with any service to him or to your Lordships, lay upon the Table, because important Despatches were laid upon the Table over a year ago—I think in November, 1921—and since then such Papers as have passed are not Papers which are generally considered suitable to lay upon the Table. Therefore I hope my noble friend will content himself partly with the announcement that we shall soon arrive at a conclusion on the subject, partly with a re-perusal of the Papers already laid, and partly with a re-consultation with the experts whose views in some respects, he says, differ from those of the Indian experts. I hope that those three courses of inquiry may bring to him some degree of consolation.

§ LORD LAMINGTON
My Lords, I feared that the answer of the noble Viscount would be of the character of that which he has delivered, but I cannot understand to what he was referring when he spoke of the opinion given by experts in 1913. I suppose he was referring to the Committee which then considered the question. But that is just the point. It is not their scheme which is being carried out. The present scheme is a rushed scheme brought forward during the war. That is the whole point. The scheme of the Committee which sat in 1913 was quite different. The main point of difference between the two schemes is that the barrage should not be commenced simultaneously 296 with the cutting of the canal, because the enormous cost of the barrage would render the work unproductive, and you could not get the benefit of the flow of water until the barrage and the canal were completed.
Then the noble Viscount asked me what experts I would get. I may mention that two Inspectors-General of Irrigation in India are over here now. Mr. Gebbie is coming over here now, and, I believe, Mr. Riew, the present Commissioner of Sind. It is a very favourable opportunity for having the matter considered by a Committee. All material has been obtained, and it would not take very long for them to consider these different points. I think that my noble friend would sleep more quietly to-night if he felt that he had behind him not only those who hold office, and who cannot therefore help being biassed, but also the general consensus of opinion of men of the highest reputation who also have held similar posts of importance in India. It is an important matter, and if such a course were adopted it would allay a great deal of anxiety as to the future.

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
My Lords, if I were unable to sleep because of the disagreement of experts I should spend very few nights indeed in helpful slumber, but I would point out, in reply to my noble friend, who talks about it being a different scheme, that it is a different scheme because it was re-shaped in order to take advantage of comments which had been made, and that it is only different in that respect. Your Lordships will not wish me to go into very technical details, otherwise I should be very glad to discuss not only whether the canals should be built before the barrage, or the barrage before the canals, or whether they should be built simultaneously, or which canal should be built first, or what should be the exact position of the barrage. They are all highly technical matters of detail, unsuitable for discussion here, but I have had the advantage of discussing these problems with Mr. Gebbie, Inspector-General of Irrigation, who has come over, and I speak having had the advantages of long consultation with that gentleman.