HL Deb 03 March 1926 vol 63 cc422-8

LORD LAMINGTON had the following Notice on the Paper:—

To ask His Majesty's Government—

  1. 1. Whether an estimate of the total cost of the Sukkur barrage project was prepared by an independent expert representing an experienced firm of contractors, and what was the difference between this estimate and that officially adopted;
  2. 2. Whether he is aware that this project, containing features unknown to Indian experience, is regarded in its present form as unsatisfactory and dangerous by some of the most distinguished engineers that India has produced;
  3. 3. And whether, in view of these circumstances, he will cause an independent inquiry to be made into the financial aspects of the project to ascertain whether there is any reasonable prospect of its proving productive;
  4. 4. Also, of the land that is expected to be irrigated under the scheme, what is the acreage held respectively by the zemindars and the Government; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this question deals with a subject that I have raised two or three times in your Lordships' House and discussed at many meetings held outside. At all of those meetings which I attended I said I would not take any further part in such discussion, because, the Government of India having made up its mind to go on with the Sukkur scheme, I regarded the matter as res judicata, and therefore I saw no advantage in prolonging discussion, and I only hoped that it would be a successful project when completed. I had a letter, however, from Lord Sydenham, who is extremely anxious about this matter, asking me to put down a Question on the Notice Paper. He said he did not himself feel equal to taking part in the debate, which I am sure we deeply regret, and your Lordships will share with me the hope that in the future we may not be deprived of the benefit of his great experience and weighty opinion when our discussions take place.

To go very briefly into the question of the Sukkur barrage, I may say that in 1913 there was a Barrage Committee, which then produced a scheme which was concerned mainly with the cutting of a new canal. The question of the increased fertilisation of the great plains of Sind had been under consideration for a number of years. The scheme of 1913 was not given effect to, but it held the field until 1920, when Sir Thomas Ward had another scheme, which itself gave way to another in 1922, and finally took the form of the scheme which now, I understand, is being undertaken by the Bombay Government on the Indus. The scheme has met with a great deal of criticism by engineers of repute, and I may say that only on one occasion at the many meetings that I have attended on this subject did I ever hear a voice raised in approval of it. The scheme will be one of the greatest magnitude—the greatest scheme in the world. I think the estimate for it is something like £12,000,000 or more, but those who criticise the scheme believe that its cost will be something like £20,000,000. That is the reason for the first part of the Question on the Paper. Lord Sydenham is anxious to know whether any outside opinions, in addition to those of the engineers responsible for the scheme, have been obtained as to the actual cost of the barrage and the subsidiary work.

The other point on which he laid great stress was about the financial disaster that might ensue if this scheme were carried into effect. I will mention one matter to illustrate the discrepancy of opinion between those who regard this scheme with misgiving and those who are responsible for it. Two officials who are very well acquainted with Sind were appointed in 1918 by Mr. Lucas (I think it was Mr. Lucas, the Commissioner of Sind, who has very great experience there) to estimate the value of the land which might be sold if the original scheme were adopted. These two officials, people well conversant with all the conditions of Sind, considered that Rs. 20 or Rs. 30 would be about the figure that good land could be sold for when the irrigation scheme had been completed; but those who are responsible for the present project estimate that second-class land would fetch Rs.50 and other land of superior quality as much as Rs.200 or Rs.250. There is a very wide difference of opinion between those two sets of opinion. It only seems reasonable, therefore, that before engaging in this very vast project you should, if possible, obtain some independent opinion to see whether it is sound financially, and also from other points of view—for example, whether it might not bring about a disaster to Sind by diverting the whole course of the Indus. I have put down a subsidiary Question raising the question of how much of this land may be considered to be held by the zemindars, that is, the present owners of the land, and how much would be sold to outside persons.

One of the great criticisms—I think a just one—against the sale of land is, first, where are you going to find the people who are likely to buy? The land that would be put before what I would describe as the outside people, not those who are at present occupiers of holdings, would not be of the best quality and, therefore, it is very improbable that they would risk their money in buying land of secondary value.

Those are the only points upon which I desire to ask for enlightenment from the noble and learned Earl, the Secretary of State for India. There is certainly one pleasant feature about any Indian scheme at present and that is the improved condition of the finances of India. How far that improvement is reflected in the Bombay Presidency I am not sure. It was stated in The Times last week that a loss of three crores of rupees was expected to be realised on the great Back Bay reclamation at Bombay City. Yet a sum of 103 lakhs of rupees, over £700,000, is to be budgeted for this year in order to carry on the work on the Sukkur barrage. It is a satisfactory feature that the whole of the finances of our Indian Empire appear to be in a much better condition than was the case three or four years ago, when these schemes appeared to be far more formidable than they do in the present improved conditions. I hope the noble Earl will be able to show in his reply that he has given grave consideration to this question. I beg to move.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD)

My Lords, I regret to hear of the ill health of the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, and I trust that his health may soon be restored. If I am not mistaken this is the third occasion on which my noble friend who actually moved has raised this Question in your Lordships' House. I say this in no spirit of complaint, for I feel that in the case of a scheme of this magnitude, if any doubts are felt as to its soundness it is desirable that those doubts should, if possible, be set at rest. And it is certainly appropriate if the Question is to be raised that it should be raised by one who has rendered such distinguished service as has my noble friend in the capacity of Governor of the Presidency concerned.

I gather that the noble Lord feels some anxiety as to the soundness of the scheme, not only on the technical side but also the financial side. When this matter last came before your Lordships' House, three years ago, the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, who was then Secretary of State for India, explained that the original scheme was examined by a strong committee of experts in this country in 1913, and that in accordance with their advice a modified scheme was prepared. This was ultimately sanctioned, and the work was actually commenced in 1923. Nothing that my noble friend has said has convinced me that another examination of the scheme by experts is necessary, and I am certainly not prepared to suspend work for that purpose. I must, therefore, adhere to the decision taken by my predecessor three years ago.

As regards the financial aspect of the scheme, about which my noble friend expresses some doubt, he is aware that, apart altogether from the technical examination which it receives, before an irrigation project is submitted for sanction it is examined by revenue and financial experts for the purpose of ascertaining whether the work will be productive or not. In this case, as the cost of construct on was estimated at sum of not less than eighteen and a-half crores of rupees, this examination both in India and in London was exceptionally searching, and I have no reason to suppose that after a necessary period of years an adequate return on the capital invested will not be forthcoming. If it is not, a very surprising mistake has been made by a number of very experienced gentlemen who have not made ninny mistakes of this kind in the course of heir careers.

I am well aware that the scheme has been subjected to, strong criticism both on the technical and on the financial side, and I have here a set of Papers prepared in 1923 which contains joint notes written by the Inspector-General of Irrigation in India and the executive engineer who prepared the project replying to these criticisms. I do not know whether my noble friend has seen these Papers. if not, I shall be glad to supply him with a copy and I can give him this assurance, that if after reading them he can convince me that there is anything doubtful in the revenue estimates of the project, or if he can bring to my notice any new fact of which account has not been taken, I shall be prepared to take the matter up with the Government of India. Beyond this I am afraid that it is impossible for me to go.

As regards the Question asked by my noble friend whether an estimate was prepared by an independent expert representing an experienced firm of contractors, I find that no independent estimate properly so-called was prepared in this way. What happened was that a well known firm made a calculation of the price they would require for the work, the calculation being based on the estimates prepared by the Government engineers. The figure they arrived at was £220,000,000 as against the official estimate of about 18½ crores of rupees, roughly equivalent at art exchange of 1s. 6d. to £13,800,000, a figure to which the Government of India adhered after being in possession of the contractor's calculation, and after reconsidering their original conclusion.

I, unfortunately, do not possess the precise figures for which my noble friend asks in the fourth part of his Question, but if he so wishes and will inform me I will obtain them from India. It may interest him to know that the Government of Bombay contemplate disposing of about 1,500,000 acres by sale. Whether they are sanguine or not only the future can show. The total area which will eventually be irrigated by the scheme is expected to be about 5⅓ million acres, of which some 2,000,000 acres are at present under cultivation.

LORD LAMINGTON

My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply, and I shall be very glad to see the Papers to which he referred and which he said I might examine. I could not quite catch what he said in the early part of his reply, but I understood him to say that an examination of the merits of the scheme had been made at the India Office by some independent body.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

No, I did not say there had been an examination made by an outside or independent body; but, as I have said, I will supply my noble friend with a copy of the Papers if he wishes for them.

LORD LAMINGTON

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that assurance, and in those circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at six o'clock.