OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

HL Deb 13 March 1951 vol 170 cc1031-73

2.40 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD OGMORE)

My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I should like to recall to your Lordships' memories the fact that, when the original Bill was before the House in 1948, the principle enshrined in it was welcomed by noble Lords on all sides. On details some noble Lords had reservations to make, but on the principle there was a general welcome for the Bill. The purpose of the measure, as noble Lords will remember, was to attempt to make good the world shortage of oils and fats by the cultivation, by methods never before adopted on the scale envisaged, of land which had not previously been cultivated. So there were two points put before your Lordships' House: first, the cultivation of land which had never previously been cultivated and, second, the cultivation of such land by methods never before adopted on the scale envisaged. At that time, as your Lordships will remember, the domestic fat ration was 7 oz. a week. It was hoped that a scheme of this magnitude would go some way towards relieving the shortage. In addition, it was hoped by a large number of people, not only on the Government Benches, but also among noble Lords on the Opposition side, that the standards of living of the Colonial peoples, themselves, would be raised as the result of this project.

The original plan envisaged the clearing by 1953 of 3,210,000 acres of bush in Eastern and Central Africa, and an annual production of ground-nuts after that date of about 600,000 tons. It was estimated that the maximum requirement which the Treasury would have to meet was not likely to exceed £23,000,000. It was found by sad experience, however, that not only were the estimates of annual clearing and planting beyond the Corporation's capacity, but also that the cost of clearing the land was much greater than had been anticipated. The situation is therefore this. At Kongwa there is a cleared area of about 90,000 acres. At Urambo the bush has been felled on 65,000 acres, of which 45,000 acres will be available for agriculture by the harvest of this year, and 60,000 acres will be available in subsequent years. In the Southern Province some 20,000 acres have been felled, of which about 7,000 will be available for agriculture for the 1951 harvest. During the current wet season a further 40,000 acres will be felled by two land clearing teams built up for this purpose.

I do not intend to go over the many reasons which have led to such a disappointing result. I think they are well known to your Lordships. I have no wish to engage, and I am sure your Lordships have no wish, either to engage in witch hunting or in bandying personalities and quotations. To my mind, the danger of the failure of this experiment is that it may discourage the attempting of others and gravely endanger the development of under-developed areas. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a very real danger which failure in an attempt of this kind brings in its train. Therefore, we must guard against it.

We must see this matter in perspective. I regard it as a battle in the campaign waged against the immemorial enemies of mankind—hunger, malnutrition, disease, soil erosion, land infertility, extinction of the life of plants, animals and man. It is a battle which is always going on, and nowhere more fiercely than in areas such as Eastern and Central Africa. We have to meet the needs of an increased population, especially in rural areas. Broadly speaking, population in many parts of the world is doubling in thirty years, and the population in rural areas is increasing more rapidly than that in industrial areas. This fact was brought out very significantly in a recent report from the United Nations Economic and Social Council at Santiago. I have not seen the text of this Report but have seen only the Press report; broadly speaking, however, the figures must be about right. The Press report said that 74 per cent. of the population of Africa was engaged in agriculture, as compared to 70 per cent. in Asia, 60 per cent. in South America and less than 40 per cent. in Europe and North America. Yet most of this agriculture is primitive, migratory, and barely serves to meet subsistence needs. As anyone who has been connected with Africa knows, from time to time large supplies of grain have to be taken into certain districts to meet famine conditions or the possibility of famine. What industries there are on the continent supply minerals and metals to the outside world. The average annual income per capita, the report continued, is less than 50 United States dollars. With 23 per cent. of the world's land area. Africa provides only 5.9 per cent. of world exports and 8 per cent. of world imports. The population rose from 136,000,000 in 1920 to 198,000,000 in 1949. There are only 40.000 miles of railway track in Africa, half the mileage of Latin America.

It is against these facts, and against the circumstances found in the middle part of the continent of Africa, that you must judge the scheme and the proposals of His Majesty's Government. I would say that man's survival with any reasonable standard of living depends largely on the success of the campaign carried out in country of this type. The campaign is not merely for the bodies of men, but for the hearts and minds and souls of men as well. We are now in the cold war, and Communist Russia has had her greatest, indeed her only, successes so far in countries which are mainly agrarian and with a low standard of living. Contrary to what was believed years ago would be the course of events, she has had few successes, if any, in industrial areas. To prove my point on the danger of leaving these rural areas in a sort of intellectual, moral and spiritual vacuum, I should like to quote from two sources, from a combination which I believe is somewhat unusual but which I think is almost in-vincible—the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, in your Lordships' House, and the Minister of Health in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said, on March 1: Hunger, poverty and disease are good growing weather for Communism. Communism is an army which marches on other people's stomachs. The Minister of Health said: The Soviet Union has won its victories in those agrarian parts of the world where poverty is her chief ally. She has not won them, and she will not win them, in modern industrial communities. So far the Russian campaign has been fought in Eastern Europe and Asia: but who knows where there may be in future another battle ground?

I remember that General Smuts once told me that: Africa was a forgotten continent, but at last it is coming into its own. We are waging similar campaigns in many parts of the world. Our Colonial Development plans are well known to your Lordships. India and Pakistan are making efforts of this kind. So are the United Nations, through their specialised agencies, and so are the United States. In South East Asia we hope the Colombo Plan will co-ordinate the efforts of the various countries and agencies into a scheme which will bring great assistance to the peoples of the area.

The primary difficulty of development in the type of country one finds in Eastern and Central Africa was brought out in this year's proceedings of the United Nations. On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I had the honour of initiating the debate on the Report of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. That Report dealt largely with the diffi- culty of financing development in underdeveloped areas. It was to that aspect of the problem that the delegates present addressed their minds, and there was great discussion on it. But it became apparent, before we had gone very far, that this country was a great way ahead of any other country (at least, that was my view, although of course I was biased) in developing organisms for dealing with this problem. All the major countries of the world were represented there. It has been found a matter of the utmost difficulty to finance unproductive but essential primary development in rural territories. Before there can be any real development someone has to pay for the roads, water supplies, electricity, hospitals, schools and so on. The financing of that primary development, before one can proceed to the development which will have a direct financial return, although it may not be for some years, has been a matter of great difficulty, and it has not yet been solved.

I had discussions with the International Bank on this point, because they objected to something I said in the course of my speech, but it became apparent that even they do not finance development of this kind. I want to pay tribute to the great work they are doing in this field, but they do not—and one can hardly expect them to, in view of their charter— finance development of a purely non-productive kind. What they do is to take products that are non-self-liquidating with self-liquidating products, make them into a bag and advance money on the whole lot. We have started something in organisation in this way that deserves great credit. I do not say that this Government started it all; in fact, it was partly started in the time of the Coalition Government. We have, through the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, a method of financing in under-developed territories the development of projects which have not. and will never have, any direct commercial return: and. in the second place, through the Colonial Development Corporation and the Overseas Food Corporation, with which we are particularly dealing to-day, we have methods of assisting private enterprise in dealing with the projects, which are likely to give a commercial return, although this may not be immediate.

One of the difficulties of this particular scheme has been that it has been necessary to carry an enormous amount of expense, which no project in this country or in any developed country would possibly have to bear. They have had to build roads, to finance or guarantee railway expenditure, to spend money on docks, to deal with hospitals and the like; and there is, as one can imagine in countries and areas such as this, considerable reluctance on the part of private enterprises to go in—and who can blame them? When they have to deal with developments of this kind, the first thing that happens is that they come along and ask for some Government guarantee. I remember that when I was in the Colonial Office private enterprise firms came along on several occasions and asked: "Will you, or will the Government of this territory, take over part of the expense to which we shall be put by reason of the fact that we have to do so much work building houses, schools, and the like—and which will never give a direct remunerative return?" It is interesting to note that the Sudan Plantations Syndicate, which is often quoted to us on this side of the House as being a profitable enterprise and one that has rendered great benefit to the community —to both of which facts we readily subscribe—went six years before earning even a small profit. Their last dividend was 25 per cent., they have a vastly increased capital, and the £1 shares now stand at 73s. 6d. or possibly more. So that it was some time before even the Sudan Plantations Syndicate got on their feet and began to earn money.

It seems to me that one of the things that we have got to work out in this country, and in international affairs generally, with reference to the development of these territories, is some method of differentiating between the supply of capital on non-productive projects and that on productive projects. I do not think, whether it be a State Corporation or private enterprise which is concerned, that it will be easy to find both types of capital. We have learned many lessons from this scheme, and those lessons are being applied in the scheme which is now being pursued. And the lessons which have been learned there will, of course, be of use and available elsewhere. Before I leave the past history of the scheme, I should like to pay a tribute to those who work on the ground there. I feel that, in whatever capacity they work, they deserve a great meed of praise. It is no fault of theirs that the scheme was not successful. They put an enormous amount of energy and imagination into it; and they worked under difficult and trying conditions. I feel that your Lordships' House would like me to pay tribute to them, wherever they may be.

The Government proposals are based upon the Overseas Food Corporation's recommendations, which your Lordships can find in the Annex to Command Paper No. 8125. The new proposals cover a new seven-year period up to 1957. There will be no further land clearing at Kongwa. Of the cleared area of 90,000 acres, about 24,000 acres are to be set aside for agriculture, of which some 12,000 acres will be under crop each year. The remainder of the cleared land will be available for grazing. At Urambo, although it is not expected that more than 45,000 of the 65,000 acres felled will be available for agriculture for the harvest of 1951, in subsequent years 60,000 acres will be available. Only 45,000 acres, however, will be under crop at one time. In the Southern Province, of the 20,000 acres felled about 7,000 will be available for agriculture for the 1951 harvest. In addition, 40,000 acres are being felled during the current wet season, and further clearing processes on this land will be maintained up to 1954, when there will be a review as to whether further felling will be desirable. Your Lordships will see that there is a slight variation there between the recommendations made by the Corporation and the decision ultimately taken by the Government. Instead of fanning units of 30,000 acres, units will vary from 1,500 to 6,000 acres; and the need for continuity of agricultural operations over a period of seven years is emphasised in the interests of efficiency and morale.

The Government have also made further decisions. First, they have made a financial estimate of the amount required. The cost of the scheme over the seven-year period is of the order of £13,500,000 gross, but the net cost to the Exchequer is estimated at £6,000,000. That does not allow for contingencies, or for any bush clearing after 1954, but it is hoped that after 1954 the Corporation will break even. Then there is a change in the ministerial responsibility, whereby responbility for the Tanganyika scheme is transferred from the Minister of Food to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. This arrangement will not apply to the Queensland project, and the Minister of Food will take direct responsibility for the Queensland British Food Corporation.

I will say just a word about the Queensland British Food Corporation, established under Statute of the Queensland State Parliament in March, 1948. The primary purpose of selling up this Corporation was to secure the production of grain sorghum on a range of properties in Queensland, to be used either for pig production in Queensland or for export to the United Kingdom. The Corporation are jointly responsible to the Queensland Government and the Overseas Food Corporation. The Overseas Food Corporation nominated the Chairman and the majority of the members. The Queensland Government nominated the Deputy-Chairman and the remainder of the members. The capital was found, as to one-quarter by the Queensland Government, with, a maximum of £500,000, and the balance by the Overseas Food Corporation, who have already advanced £1,500,000, so that the total capital available is £2,000,000. The Queensland Corporation were able to commence sorghum production on an extensive scale in advance of the pig breeding, and the United Kingdom took, and are still taking, the surplus for the time being. There is no direct contract between the Ministry of Food and the Corporation for pig meat or beef. The action of the Corporation has given a lead to the private farmer—or so I am informed. The Corporation own 727,000 acres of land in Queensland, part being used for cattle production and part for sorghum. This land was previously over-grazed, but it is now getting back into good heart. The total production of sorghum is about 28,000 tons, and 25,500 tons of sorghum from the 1950 crop were for the United Kingdom.

As to pig production, two piggery units are now in operation, at which the Corporation have 2,180 pigs and piglets. They are now experimenting with range feeding, allowing the pigs to wander about at large. As to cattle production, the grazing land unsuitable for cultivation is used for cattle for grazing, and the sorghum stubble offers a considerable area of keep for cattle. This enables the Corporation to purchase numbers of store cattle at satisfactory prices at a time when breeders have little keep. The cattle are carried through the winter on stubble, and finished off on new grass in the spring. There was an exhibition of beasts fattened in this way in May, 1950, and it evoked favourable comments. The Corporation now own 23,230 head of cattle, and about 9,000 head have been previously sold off. It is estimated that, with certain improvements to the land, 22,500 head can be carried for fattening, and that when it gets into full production this production plan will certainly help to swell Australia's exportable surplus of beef. I am glad to say that two Members of Parliament, including a member of your Lordships' House, have made public comments on this scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said at Rockhampton that it was obvious that the undertaking was in splendid hands, for he had been impressed by the sight of so much achievement in so short a period of time. Mr. Hurd, who is a well-known agricultural expert, said, also in Rockhampton: What I saw impressed me tremendously, and I shall take to the House of Commons an excellent report of the Queensland British Food Corporation activities here…. The whole job is a thorough one. Now with regard to the intentions of the Bill. Clause 1 transfers to the Secretary of State for the Colonies the functions of the Minister of Food under the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948. Clause 2 relates to the functions of the Overseas Food Corporation, now confined to operations in East Africa, for Central African operations have gone. It also provides a new constitution for the Board—namely, a Chairman and not fewer than two or more than six other members. Clause 3 relates to the duty of the Overseas Food Corporation to secure as soon as practicable a balance in their account, and further provides for expenses, advances and other financial arrangements. It provides for the writing off of advances already made. Clause 4 relates to the Queensland Corporation, and provides that the rights of the Over-seas Food Corporation in respect of advances made by the Overseas Food Corporation to the Queensland Corporation shall be transferred to the Minister of Food. Other consequential financial matters are also dealt with in this clause.

There will no doubt be matters into which your Lordships will wish to inquire, and with the permission of the House I will try to clear up at the end of the debate any doubts that your Lordships may have on matters of detail. I hope, however, that you will have no doubts at all on the main principle of the scheme. This is not a new venture. It is a continuation of the venture on a good deal lower scale than was contemplated previously, and there will of course be consequential adjustments. I think there has been some misapprehension in the public mind on that account. They have tended to regard it as an entirely new scheme, instead of as a continuation, on a smaller scale, of an existing scheme. In future, what will take place in East Africa is a large-scale field experiment, combined with scientific research. By the seven years' run we hope to develop a pattern of agriculture suitable to the soil, 'the climate and the people, and thus demonstrate what can be done with these marginal lands in Africa and elsewhere. Queensland is a notable development between two Governments, and the scheme is promising—I say no more. Again, we hope to demonstrate what can be done in such belts as this—and there are many—where the rainfall is of the order of between 20 and 25 inches a year.

In conclusion, I should like to reiterate that neither we, nor anyone else, have yet found the answer to the problem of the development of under-developed areas, whether in Africa or elsewhere. There may not be a single answer; or the answers may depend upon circum-stances. A great deal of trial and error is required, on the organisation side, on the field side, on the research side and on the financial side. The scheme in its modified form, as I have described it to your Lordships, must be continued. It is one of the many trials which we, and others, are conducting; and we, as the greatest Colonial Power of all, must not be discouraged by the setback we have had. I feel that we must go on. We owe it to Africa; we owe it to ourselves; and we owe it to poor and hungry people everywhere. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.— (Lord Ogmore.)

3.9 p.m.

VISCOUNT SW1NTON

My Lords, the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State commended this Bill to us in a speech which contained a number of agreeable and humane generalities, but which at no point condescended to matters of detail. He has been good enough to say —and the House will welcome his statement—that he will deal with the more detailed aspects of the matter when he comes to reply. He has also based his claim for the support of your Lordships on the fact that when the scheme was originally introduced a number of people in different quarters of this House, and in another place, made speeches welcoming it. Well, it would be an unhappy affair if we were all to be bound for ever by all the speeches which we had made. It would cause great embarrassment in all quarters of the House.

I would also remind the noble Lord that at the time when those speeches were made the only source of information we had was the Government prospectus, showing what this plan was going to cost and what the results were likely to be. I think we should have been charged almost with misconduct, and certainly with misrepresentation, if we had suggested that the Government prospectus did not conform to those rules which apply to the promises and prognostications held out by private enterprise in invitations to the public to subscribe. Indeed, with great respect, I think the Government ought to be even more particular in a prospectus because, after all, if private enterprise makes an offer to the public, the public have the option to subscribe or not as they please; but when £30,000,000, £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 is to be raised compulsorily from the taxpayer for a State Corporation we all become shareholders, whether we like it or not.

I therefore naturally wish to consider how far I have been—I will not say taken in by the prospectus, but how far I have, shall I say "fallen for" it. I have looked up the speech I made on the Second Reading of the original Bill. It is true that I wished the scheme well—if I had not I should have been told that I was very churlish, and was running down a great undertaking. But I did venture to utter some warnings, and to make some criticisms. In the first place I took the strongest exception to the diarchy—to having the Ministry of Food brought in over what I believed should be within the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office. I will not trouble your Lordships with the speech, but there it is. I also commented upon the fallacy of ignoring the small producer, who, in the great African territories, will always be the main source of supply. I said, too, that surely the wise thing to do if we wanted to get ground-nuts or oils and oil seeds quickly was to go where we knew we should get the supply. I begged that supplies of rolling stock—engines and trucks and other railway material—might not be diverted from Nigeria, where we knew ground-nuts were, and were, indeed, lying in store, to this unknown project in Tanganyika. I am bound to say that I think all those warnings;—all of them, I need hardly say, entirely disregarded— were, in the face of the Government prospectus, not altogether unwarranted. But, of course, we are now in a very different position. We have now three years' experience of the Minister of Food and his Corporation. I am not going to engage in a heresy hunt —but are we not to learn at all from past experience? Let us not be accused of heresy hunting if we try to learn a little from the fallacies and follies of the past. After all, the White Paper which is before us and the Bill which is presented to us are in the first place an inquest on a ghastly fiasco; and, in the second place, they contain proposals and commitments for the future.

I have in my time seen some fairly big failures which have caused loss and unhappiness; but I think that to lose £36,000,000 in three years (with more to come) on a single project must constitute a record in either public or private enterprise: and it was all so unnecessary. If the Government wanted—as they did— more ground-nuts, and wanted them quickly, surely the obvious thing was first of all to expand production where we had obtained extra production in the War. I remember that when I went out to West Africa the noble Lord who was then Minister of Food said to me, "It all depends on what you can do in West Africa whether we can keep up the fat ration of this country." It did not, as a matter of fact, depend upon me, but upon millions of small producers in the West African territories. However, together we did it and we did not let the fat ration down. We obtained increased quantities of palm oil and an enormous increase in palm kernels, and we were able to get a production of ground-nuts of between 300,000 and 400,000 tons in a year out of Nigeria, some more from elsewhere and 30,000 or 40,000 tons from Gambia—where ground-nuts seem to grow better than hens.

But this was done by a very simple and, it seemed to me, very obvious expedient: it was done by getting people who knew how to grow ground-nuts to grow more ground-nuts, in ground where ground-nuts would grow. I am bound to say that I did not think that that was particularly clever at the time; I thought it was rather obvious. But now, when I look back at the liquidator's Report on the Food Corporation enterprise, and compare that with what I have just described—which, of course, was done by us in West Africa without a penny of cost to the taxpayer, and with great benefit to the producers and to the standard of life of the people of West Africa—I really feel that I was rather a genius. If only I could have a commission on the difference between what I produced for Lord Woolton and what Mr. Strachey has cost the taxpayer, I should be able to retire from both public and private enterprise.

All that activity could have been expanded without difficulty. If, instead of rushing into this new project, we had spent a million or so in bringing fertilisers into the area of Kano and Katsina, where these millions of people are growing ground-nuts, we should have intensified production and obtained far more than we should have obtained in Tanganyika. It is doubtful now whether we shall ever succeed in producing ground-nuts, except by intensive individual cultivation, certainly on the soil of Africa; and there is at Kano and Katsina this vast population of millions accustomed to growing this crop. There is no tsetse fly. It would not have been difficult to extend from Kano to Bornu. The country is of the same kind; it is the same sort of soil; it is all orchard bush, easy to clear. It would not have been necessary to construct a great new railway from nowhere to nowhere. The railway was already there. As regards port facilities, so far from constructing a doubtful port at Lindi or Mtisara, or wherever it may be, there is the Port of Lagos, a great deep-water port, already equipped with cranes. Ocean-going ships of many thousand tons can get up to those great wharves fully equipped with cranes, a port which, without any adaptation, would easily take, I should say, another 1,000,000 tons of traffic a year. What is more, it would mean delivering the ground-nuts at a port with all these facilities thousands of miles nearer the points of consumption—that is to say, this country and America—than is the East Coast of Africa.

That was all too easy and too obvious for the planners. Now, at a cost of £36,000,000 (I quote from their Report) the Corporation have made this remarkable discovery: The ground-nut is not a plant which lends itself readily to mass methods over vast acreages. The attainment of economic yields demands intensive farming. If this business had been entrusted to the Colonial Office, instead of to the Ministry of Food, I think that discovery would have been made a great deal earlier, and before most of the money had been spent. But if the Government— and they must share the responsibility with their then Minister of Food—were determined to go into Tanganyika, surely the elementary precaution was to test by pilot experiments. The soil had not been tested. It would have been found by a simple pilot experiment whether or not the ground-nut lent itself to mass production. Above all, I should have thought that this was wise when going into a territory where there was no African population. Africa is a very densely populated place. If there is found a part of Africa in which the Africans are not living, and are not cultivating anything, I should have said—and the youngest district officer will tell you this —that that was something which ought to put the Government on their guard and cause them to make inquiry. Incidentally, it seems, unhappily, that the same mistake has been made in Gambia. I cannot believe that the Colonial administration on the spot there were properly consulted, any more than they were in Tanganyika. I think they would certainly have advised that it would be better to find out by a pilot experiment whether the climate suited the hen, and whether the climate suited the crop which it was proposed to grow to feed the hen.

In winding up this costly ground-nut fiasco, surely our aim ought to be to cut our losses as cheaply as possible? No one in his senses would spend £1.000,000, much less £6,000,000, in the way proposed in the White Paper if we were starting this scheme completely afresh. We all agree that we have to write off the millions that have been lost. We all agree—I am glad that the Government have come round to this; we have pressed it from the start—that the responsible Department should be the Colonial Office and not the Ministry of Food. If the Government had come to us with a plan to do those things, we should all have been in agreement. But the Government insist on linking to these changes a commitment to carry on a modified scheme for seven years under the Food Corporation. I may say at once—I have read all that has passed in another place—that the evidence on which we are asked to undertake this new commitment is far too indefinite and vague. The present Minister of Food— I could have understood it from the last one—in a purple passage said this: We all know now what is needed to face and conquer tropical Africa. Do we? The noble Lord was more modest to-day when he said something very different. It really is foolish, even under provocation, to say things like that.

I notice that the White Paper, too, is much more modest. The White Paper says, in paragraph 14: Even on the modified basis now proposed, the scheme cannot fail to be an important contribution to the economic prosperity of the territory. It would not be justifiable to allow the considerable acreages of hitherto unusable land which the Corporation have already made available for agriculture and pasture to revert to bush. Is that really sense? It is the kind of generality that sounds attractive until you try to find out what it means. It means that you have to go on whether you make a profit or a loss. I challenge that general assumption and that aphorism. It is not unjustifiable or uneconomic to let land revert to bust unless that land can be cultivated without further loss, and the Government are not doing any good to the taxpayer or to Africa by going on piling up losses. The statement that "the modified scheme cannot fail to contribute to the economic prosperity of the territory" is unsupported by evidence. All this makes me suspicious that a determination to go on doing something in the area colours the whole scheme. We are also told in the White Paper, and we we were told by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to-day, that it will cost us as much to close down as to carry on. If your Lordships will look at Paragraph 17 of the White Paper, you will see these words: Any estimate at this stage of the probable cost of the new scheme must be subject to a wide margin of error, but on the best information available at present to His Majesty's Government the amount required over the seven-year period will be of the order of £6,000,000, without allowing for contingencies or for any bush clearing after 1954. This cost is not widely different from the heavy liabilities, amounting to several million pounds, which the Corporation would in any case have had to meet, if it had been decided to abandon the whole project forthwith. This constitutes a powerful additional reason for continuing the scheme on the lines proposed above. As I say, I have read all the explanations and estimates which were given in another place, but I do not find this evidence at all convincing. We are still dealing in millions.

In the first place, although this did not show up in the White Paper—the Undersecretary of Slate said it to-day—the £6,000,000 is not only a hypothetical figure; it is a hypothetical net figure. The gross expenditure in future years is admitted to be £13,500,000. The £6,000,000 is arrived at by deducting £7,500,000 of possible sales from the £13,500,000. I cannot be in the least satisfied, on any of this evidence, that the cost of closing down has not been overestimated, and that the cost of continuing this plan has not been underestimated. What are these liabilities amounting to £6,000,000 which the Corporation would have to meet if they closed down now, but which they will not have to meet if we spend £6,000,000 in continuing the modified scheme? I am sure the noble Lord will tell us in detail.

I take one example. Under the guarantee the sum payable to the railway, which ought never to have been built, will have to be paid, whether we stay or whether we clear out; it is an obligation on the Government. At the same time, if anything is to be got back out of the railway, now or in the future, I cannot in the least follow the argument that was advanced somewhere, to the effect that we must not shut down the Corporation because if we did we should not recover anything from the railway. Surely, if the Government have got to pay the railway, if there is anything to come back on the other side of the account from the railway belonging to the Colonial Government, we should get that back.

LORD OGMORE

Perhaps I can explain to the noble Viscount. There are, in fact, two railways concerned. There is the stretch of railway which goes up to Kongwa; and the other railway, to which we have given a guarantee, is that which runs to the new port in the Southern Province. Possibly that affords an explanation.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am very much obliged. So far from that being an explanation, we now know—indeed, I think I did understand it, but let us all be clear —that there is an obligation not only in respect of one railway but in respect of two. One railway is to be constructed, and the other is to be guaranteed. But I should have thought the liability must be the same, or less, if the project were closed down. I hope that the noble Lord will particularise on this matter. I understand that this is a guarantee of receipts, and that the liability is there, whether the scheme is closed down or continued. Nobody pretends that the spending of £13,500,000 on this doubtful and very limited continuation of the enterprise will bring in receipts which will make a substantial difference to the railway. I hope that at least the noble Lord is not going to produce the kind of optimistic prospectus to which we have listened before.

With regard to the other railway, which I gather is only connected with this scheme, surely the simple thing to do is to find the cheapest way out of it. It would be better for the Government to cut their losses as quickly as possible. We know that the pipeline which was intended to bring in £100,000 worth of oil a year is now admitted to bring in only £5,000 worth, which shows how the scheme has shrunk. Therefore, if the second railway is to serve only this greatly modified plan, I should have thought that the best way to deal with it was for the Government to get out as quickly and as cheaply as possible. There is no dispute between us that as regards railway number 1 the liability continues. No doubt the noble Lord will explain to us in detail, in regard to railway number 2, why we are going to save a great deal of money if we go on or lose a great deal of money if we shut down.

Your Lordships will also observe that the estimate of £6,000,000 for carrying on, in the words of the White Paper, "must be subject to a wide margin of error." My Lords, estimates in the past in this business have constantly shown a wide margin of error on the wrong side. Nor do I believe that if we continue the scheme our financial commitment will be really limited to £6,000,000, or whatever may be the correct estimate. There is no evidence at all that anything can be produced at a profit on this land in the manner proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was very fair about this. Although he did not say that he could give any sort of guarantee, he did say "let us hope." Well, we can all hope. Hope is the only commodity not yet taxed under the present Administration. But hope and reasonable expectation are rather different things.

If we commit ourselves to the seven-year plan shall we not find at the end of that period that we have got to undertake further unremunerative expenditure, either to get out or to go on? I remember that in the First World War one general justified continuing the muddy and bloody offensive of Passchendaele on the ground that he could not think of anything better to do. Is there not something of that sort in the Government's determination to continue an offensive which we all know now should never have been undertaken? Certainly I think we need much stronger evidence before we commit ourselves to another seven years. I think that the request for an independent inquiry was entirely reasonable. However, this Government, with little moral or electoral authority, have insisted on forcing this Bill through another place. We shall not ask your Lordships to divide on it to-day. The Government must take their responsibility for it. But I must say, without any qualification, that we reserve our right, as it will be our duty, to review the whole of this matter when we have the facts and the responsibility, as before long we shall.

3.37 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, the East African ground-nuts scheme has been a godsend to the Party opposite. It has lent itself to music-hall jokes, and, I understand, although I listen only to the news, is a favourite quip on the British Broadcasting Corporation. Last night I took part in a university debate, and the scheme and what we have lost on it were the main arguments of my Conservative opponents. Now we have another one approaching; it was mentioned by the noble Viscount, and it concerns the poultry faming scheme in Gambia. Although the noble Viscount made some reservations when the ground-nuts scheme was first before Parliament, it is a fact that when it was first adumbrated, when we first heard of this large-scale plan for reclaiming a vast area of bush country which was not being put to any good use at all, it was welcomed by all Parties in both Houses. I admit that there were reservations here and there. The noble Viscount has a highly critical outlook, and in whatever scheme is brought forward he always finds some blemish or defect. I am sure he performs a very useful function accordingly. But in the City of London there is a process known as "jobbing backwards," and this is a perfect case of jobbing backwards.

After all, when this scheme was embarked upon, the Government had the support, the expert advice and the approval of, I suppose, the Corporation that has the greatest knowledge in the whole world concerning Africa—I refer to Unilevers and the United Africa Corporation. For generations now they have done great work all over Africa in developing native industries, trade and commerce, and their knowledge is unrivalled. They advised us that the scheme was practicable and worth embarking upon. We had a great surplus of tractors, bulldozers and so on from the recent World War, which were apparently suitable for the purpose of clearing this bush country, and here seemed to be the opportunity for embarking on a great pioneering scheme which would have great results. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ogmore on his speech in introducing this subject. I believe, with him, that in the long run the knowledge and experience that we shall gain from this admittedly experimental work will be of tremendous value to the whole world.

What really is the problem? Let us try and take a very wide view here. In Africa, which the noble Viscount knows very well, and in many other parts of the world, the small, individual farmer whom he praises is gradually exhausting the soil in the most fertile areas. Particularly is this the case in East Africa, where overgrazing, overcropping, the devastation of forests, and so on, is leading to a loss of fertility of the soil. That is becoming a most serious menace for the whole world. Everywhere, as Lord Ogmore has said, populations are increasing, especially in the rural areas, but the area of cultivable land is actually decreasing. That is particularly so, I believe, in the continent of Africa, but, curiously enough, there is a similar problem in the United States of America, and the most strenuous and costly efforts have to be made there to preserve the soil from further devastation in the same way. So the problem is one of increasing population and decreasing areas of cultivable soil —soil on which crops can be grown and cattle reared. At the same time there are vast areas of land, not only in Africa but in other parts of the world which I propose to touch upon briefly in a few minutes, which are under scrub or under secondary growth—that is to say, the land has been cleared but has been allowed later to go back to the forest—and under jungle, which, if it could be cleared by modern mechanical methods, would undoubtedly do something to redress the balance and to produce the extra foodstuffs that are so badly needed. That is the problem to be faced. Whether we have wasted—and it is putting the matter at its lowest level to use that word—a considerable sum in East Africa or not, we have at any rate made an attempt to solve this problem. And it is a problem which will have to be solved, for it is getting worse and worse.

There are other parts of the world in which the experience we are gaining will be of tremendous value. In this connection, I am glad to see that we are going on with the new seven years' scheme which will give a chance of showing whether really good results can be achieved. The experience to be gained from such schemes will be of immense value to all other parts of Africa and to other parts of our tropical dependencies. One country which I believe has potentialities of great richness which could be developed, provided that the necessary capital is made available and the machinery and skilled labour provided, is the vast island of New Guinea. I am told that if the jungle there could be cleared the exceedingly rich soil would produce crops which would make the island another Java. Then, Brazil has vast unused areas—it is a country as great in size as the United States—which have not been touched. The interior of Brazil, because it is difficult of access and owing to the intractability of the jungle, has so far defeated efforts at close settlement. If our experiments in the mechanical clearing of bush and jungle are successful, they can be applied elsewhere and vast areas of land which are at present completely wasted may eventually be brought under cultivation and used for grazing and cattle-rearing purposes. That is the problem viewed as a whole. I think great credit is due to our Government in that directly after the exertions of the Second World War they embarked on this very large scheme, on expert advice. If the scheme succeeded—as it may yet succeed—it would bring great benefits, not only to the British Commonwealth, not only to the continent of Africa, but to the whole world.

I notice that there was no criticism from the noble Viscount—there has been none so far, at any rate—of the Queensland development scheme. Whether he has refrained from criticising out of consideration for the Queensland Government —he did not mind criticising our Government—I do not know. But if there is criticism to be made of that scheme I suggest that now is the time to make it. Queensland is a vast country of which I know a little, and it, also, is a country of tremendous potentialities. It is, I suppose, one of the richest undeveloped areas in the world. If young men ask me to what part of the world I would recommend them to go, I always answer, "Queensland." There are vast cattle-grazing areas, great stretches of cultivable soil, vast quantities of minerals and timber, and practically everything else that is needed. I should say it is the richest undeveloped district of the world. What are principally required are communications—railways and so on—and up-country refrigerating stations. I believe that the food producing potentialities are such that a production equal to that of the Argentine could eventually be achieved. We are embarking on a more modest scale, in partnership with the Queensland Government, on this project for growing sorghum, raising pigs, and developing up-country cattle stations in Queensland. Why has there been no criticism about the smallness of this project? If I were to criticise it, that would be the ground upon which I should do so. Seeing that the potentialities of Queensland are so enormous and the need in the future of its products will be so great, I should have liked to see more money devoted to the scheme. It does not need any pilot plan or anything of that kind because where there are communications the cattle trade has been most successful, and so has general agriculture. That, 1 suggest, is also the way to look at this whole project in East Africa.

There is another matter—it is only a small one, but I should like to refer to it. I do not like that part of the Bill which contains references to the Secretary of State and not to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It may be that there is good reason for it. I do not remember if this is common form or not. Although during my Parliamentary life I have seen many hundreds of Bills, I am uncertain about this point, and it may be that there is constitutional reason for not putting into the Bill: "Secretary of State for the Colonies." But when the Bill becomes an Act it will be read by other people besides Members of Parliament, and if it still contains the words "Secretary of State" they will be wondering which Secretary of State is meant. It might be the Secretary of State for Scotland.

LORD OGMORE

I will look into that point, tout I imagine that the passages to which the noble Lord refers are drafted in their present form because the Bill is to be read together with the Act of 1948. The Secretary of State is, of course, defined in the principal Act, and therefore further definition is not called for in this measure. I imagine that that is the case.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I believe that it is common form.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

May I intervene just to say this? I think you will find it is common form. I believe that constitutionally there is only one Secretary of State; that is why they can be interchanged with each other. I think that for generations we have always referred to "the Secretary of State."

LORD STRABOLGI

It may be a custom hallowed by long usage here, but I think it is time we changed that custom. If the person meant is the Secretary of State for the Colonies, why not say so? Or is that too iconoclastic a suggestion? I do not want to shock the Lord Chancellor, who, I know, is a great guardian of all tradition and continuity.

May I make one further observation on this great subject? I think it is relevant here to mention the question of reclaiming marginal and waste lands in other parts of the world. I have often wondered—in fact, I have argued this point as well—why modern mechanical methods of clearing rough land and rough scrub cannot be employed in our own country to a far greater extent. One or two experiments in the use of modern machinery and the modern internal combustion engine have been carried out on some of the forest waste land and have been successful. There is a considerable area of waste land or marginal land in England, Scotland and Wales, and I believe that if modern mechanical methods of reclamation were applied to them great results might be achieved. That is not a matter for private enterprise. It is not a commercial proposition—not even with Government subsidies and assistance. But it may be of tremendous importance to this country in the future if we can bring a few more thousand acres of land into cattle-bearing or crop-producing condition. Perhaps even our experiment in East Africa may in the future produce lessons of value to hard-pressed Ministers of Food if they can be applied to our own marginal areas in this country.

3.50 p.m.

LORD LLOYD

My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down said that this scheme has been of great advantage to noble Lords on these Benches because it has become a music-hall joke. If I may, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that the reason why the scheme has become a music-hall joke is that the British people, being philosophical, feel that when disasters get to a certain pitch tears are no longer appropriate and all we can do is to laugh. Those who observed the troops in war time saw that that was frequently the case. It is a joke because it has been a great disaster. In his speech this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was keen to leave the past, and after a brief reference to "witch hunting," he pressed forward rapidly to the glorious future to be obtained when we have spent another £6,000,000. I certainly do not wish to indulge in witch hunting, but, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said, we cannot be entirely oblivious to the past or go on trying to write this off by saying that a certain private enterprise company advised the Government and, therefore, must bear the blame. It is the Government's responsibility. The Government took all the credit that was going in the early days for this wonderful, mammoth scheme that was to put the British Empire right after the years of Tory misrule, and now they must take the blame. It is no good blaming the United Africa Company.

LORD OGMORE

I never mentioned the United Africa Company.

LORD LLOYD

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was not referring to his speech. It was the noble Lord, Lord Slrabolgi, who made reference to the United Africa Company.

LORD STRABOLGI

I certainly mentioned the United Africa Company, but I did not blame them. I am certain they gave the best advice they could, and they are very experienced.

LORD LLOYD

To my mind, the implication was that the United Africa Company had been responsible for the scheme and therefore it was their fault; but if I am misrepresenting the noble Lord. I am only too pleased to withdraw my remark. Now the great disaster has occurred, it is no good saying it was not our fault. We have to see why it was a disaster and try not to do it again: that is the first lesson. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that this measure was welcomed by all Parties, and certainly the principle of the Bill was welcomed by all Parties. I speak with particular feeling on this matter, because, for family reasons, I have always been interested in colonial development and I take a modest pride in the fact that it was my father who introduced the first Colonial Welfare and Development Bill in your Lordships' House during the war.

We all believe in the vital importance of developing the Colonies and the Dominions. I would go so far as to say that in the long run the only solution of our economic difficulties and of those of the whole Empire is that we should be able to develop the Colonies. But when we talk gaily about great schemes of development we should remember the difficulties, particularly the financial difficulties. If we had enormous resources, how easy it would be to undertake great schemes, to take great risks and to lose large sums of money! But one of our difficulties has always been that there were financial limitations on what we could spend, and that is more true to-day than ever it was. Therefore, it is vitally important that the money we spend on Empire development should be well spent, spent in the right place, and should yield the maximum results and advantage. The lesson of this scheme is that that has not been done. Only the minimum advantage has been obtained, and all we have learned is something which we could have bought for a great deal less than £36,000,000—namely, that we cannot plant ground-nuts successfully in East Africa and that they are not susceptible there to large-scale development. As my noble friend Viscount Swinton said, a pilot scheme would have taught us that in half the time and at about one-fiftieth of the cost.

The impression I have about this Bill is that it is not really any better thought out than the original Act. The information is vague. We are not told the grounds on which better results are now hoped for. It is admitted that there is not going to be any profit in it; it is an experiment. But we have had an experiment, which has proved that we cannot grow ground-nuts in a large area in Tanganyika. Do we need another experiment to prove the same thing? I very much doubt it. Again, we are told that we have to go on with the scheme because it would cost us more, or as much, not to go on with it. I am extremely sceptical about that. We have had no figures to suggest it, and I would press the noble Lord to tell us what these great liabilities are which make it so imperative to continue the scheme. It is an axiom in business to start in a small way in order to learn the business and then to build up from the small foundations. It is another axiom in business to cut your losses. It is no good carrying on with the idea of "Next time, lucky." That does not work in gambling, in business or in colonial development.

With the limited financial resources at our disposal, surely we have to consider the British Commonwealth as a whole. It is open to consideration whether we could not have done better by spending the £36,000,000 elsewhere. There are many places where development is urgently needed—in Rhodesia, for instance, where much could be done by irrigation. Before we embark on another experiment to cost £6,000,000, and possibly a great deal more, we ought to have a full and impartial inquiry, with all the facts made available; and no decision should have been taken until that had been done. I can have no confidence in this Bill. We are not going actively to oppose the Bill, but I feel the gravest misgivings. I would rather have seen something far less spectacular, but built on sound lines from the start. By spending more millions on this scheme, I do not see how we are going to make it any more successful.

3.58 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, after the detailed speech of my noble friend Lord Swinton, I do not wish to say very much about the ground-nut scheme. From the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, one would not have thought that the main purpose of the Bill was to change the management of this highly unsuccessful undertaking. That crept in only remotely in his speech. One of my regrets about this frightful fiasco of the ground-nuts is that it has brought a once great Ministry, the Ministry of Food, into considerable direpute. At no time, certainly not when I was there was that Ministry equipped to run a Colonial enterprise of this sort, and they ought never to have taken on such a job. That is the sort of job which should have been in the hands of the Colonial Office and their administrators.

The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that the failure of the scheme was a godsend to the Opposition. Of course, it is. It is always a godsend when what we have been saying a Socialistic Government would do turns out to be right. We have long said that they would be extravagant and waste the people's money, and that is certainly what they have done in East Africa. The noble Lord also said that we were jobbing 'backwards, and that it was easy enough to do that. Parliament in this matter is not the board of directors, but only the shareholders who act on such reports as their directors give them. It is the directors who ought to watch the matter all the time, and not allow things to come to such a pass that an extraordinary general meeting has to be called—which is what we are engaged in here this afternoon—in order to change the board of management. I would just correct the noble Lord on a further point, if I may, having travelled through West Africa and Kano. The ordinary settled small producer in the Kano district does keep up the fertilisation of his soil. One can see the trouble he takes to collect all the donkey and camel dung to put back into the land that he cultivates. He usually has a considerable smallholding, about half of which he uses for groundnuts and the other half for feeding his own family; and he changes it round and tries to keep the land in good heart. At any rate, we could have supplied those people with a little extra fertiliser, if that was the idea, at far less expense than the £36,000 000 which we are discussing to-day.

I do not want to delay your Lordships because, as I said, my noble friend Lord Swinton has dealt with that matter, and particularly with that point. I should, however, like to say a word about the Queensland project. It is possible that I am the only member of your Lordships' House who has seen it; at any rate, I was there last December, and the noble Lord in opening the debate quoted some words I used at Rockhampton just after I came back from seeing Peak Down and its neighbouring farm. That has started off in far better circumstances than did the ground-nuts scheme in East Africa. First of all, the Queensland Government secured, as Vice-Chairman of that Corporation, one of the ablest business men in Queensland; a man whom the Prime Minister of Queensland has just put on his Capital Resources Committee, and uses for many purposes. He knows, on the spot, the right men to pick to run a project of this sort, and I believe that at the moment they have good men running the scheme. I was interested in some of the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore gave; that the cattle had gone up 6,000 since I was there. That is quite normal, because they probably brought in stock cattle to feed. Pigs, I think he said, now number 2,000. There has been a phenomenal increase. I walked round in half an hour, and saw all the pigs at one half of the pig project. However, I am glad to think that that part of the organisation is going well. I was disappointed in the figure given by the noble Lord for the probable amount of tons of sorghum. I believe the noble Lord gave a figure of less than 40,000 tons—

LORD OGMORE

I said 28,000 tons.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I hoped, and the people there hoped, that they were likely to get some 40,000 tons. Do not let anybody think that this is all plain sailing. One thing I deprecate about Lord Strabolgi's speech was that he wanted a vastly expanded scheme compared with that which they have at the present moment. I believe that they are right in not rushing into things before they have the necessary equipment and the man-power. That is where there is wise management on the spot. I am one of those people who hate quoting average figures. I know that they quote the average figure of rainfall—I think the noble Lord said it was; twenty inches.

LORD OGMORE

Twenty to twenty-five inches.

LORD LLEWELLIN

In the Peak Down neighbourhood they have had vastly more rain than that this year; it has been a frightfully wet year in Queensland. But, if we look back at the history of this property, we shall find that the owner who had it just after the last war discovered that it was rather like the Egypt in the Bible days, and had five or six years of drought. If this particular owner had not had family connections unconnected with that land he would have been in great difficulty, because he could not do anything with the land.

When I was there they had sown about half the crop of sorghum they intended to sow, but they were waiting, despite the wetness of the year, for a shower or two of rain before they put in the extra seed for which thousands of acres of land had been prepared. They cannot put the seed in unless they get that rainfall just to start it off. There is a time coming when they will not have that rainfall in Queensland in any part of the year. Do not let us take average figures as though they mean that every year there will be between twenty and twenty-five inches of rain in that particular place, because there will be some years when they will get very little, and even none. They are complaining there this year that they have had too much rain. Farmers are just the same all over the world: there has either been too much rain, too little, or the rain has come at the wrong time. But it has prevented their ploughing as much of the land as they would have liked. On the other hand, they have a second crop this year out of last year's sowing, which in a normal year is not to be expected, and that will put up their tonnage of sorghum.

Another reason why this matter should not be rushed is the difficulty of getting adequate labour so far from a town as these properties are situated. A young man who goes there and works hard will make about twenty Australian pounds a week, with the overtime that he does. The men themselves make their own arrangements for feeding, and that costs them about £2 10s. a week; and there is no shop or public-house nearer than about seven miles, where they can spend anything additional. So a man, willy-nilly, has £16 or £17 a week in his pocket, and, often, depending on the man, when he has done ten, fifteen or twenty weeks' work, he will say: "I will go somewhere and spend this money." So back he goes into Brisbane or some other town, with the result that it is necessary to recruit new labour. That is understandable, but the result is that the Corporation are always training new tractor drivers, and the wear on tractors is excessive—far worse than if the same driver operated the same tractor, year in and year out, and looked after it.

When there is a dearth of labour, as there is at the moment in Australia and Queensland, it is not easy to attract people to places out in the country such as this. I believe that the only way to do that will be by building more houses or a small village there. I do not say that the Corporation should do that. I suppose the local authority could be brought in, At any rate, until we see married people settling there, and forming a small community, there will always be changing labour in these remote districts. I believe that the Corporation are right to go slow, and to get over their difficulties one by one. If people like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who have not been there are going to press them to go ahead wholesale, then we shall lose money in quantities as we have lost it in East Africa. Let that part of the show, at any rate, go on under good management, without political pressure being put upon it one way or another.

One thing which disappointed me in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, if I understood him aright, was when he said that this country was going to take only the surplus sorghum. I believe that what we should be doing is bringing in as much feeding stuffs as we can. I believe that one of the best countries in which to rear pigs, and cattle which make good beef, is this old country of ours. In my view, it is far better for us to bring in as much of the product of these estates in the form of feedings stuffs as we can. If beef is brought from Australia it has to be frozen, and everybody who knows what a decent piece of beef tastes like wants to get back to our British home-bred beef which has not been frozen. It is true that you can make use of the remains of the sorghum—the stalks which are left after you have cut off the head which has the seed in it—for cattle feeding. By all means use it for that, and by all means put something back into the land by letting the cattle which feed on the sorghum fertilise the land in their turn. I believe that the Government are the majority shareholders in this concern—at any rate I know that the Queensland Government will do what they want with regard to the produce— and I beg them to bring back feeding stuffs so that we can produce more of our own food in this country, both cattle and bacon, and then indeed we may have thanks to offer to the Queensland scheme. In regard to these schemes generally, my view is that the Government cannot carry on being great benefactors to the world. They have to remember that there must be good business organisation in these matters, as there is in free enterprise; and that, just as directors are responsible, and rightly responsible, for their shareholders' money, so the Government are responsible for the taxpayers' money. They ought to make certain that no more is wasted in the way it has been wasted in East Africa.

4.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, the Bill before us is a Bill to launch the East Africa ground-nuts project on its second stage, which is to be an experimental development scheme on a limited scale. I understand that noble Lords opposite would wish us not to proceed with it until there had been yet another inquiry. It seems to me that it was only a few days ago that this Government was being accused from the Benches opposite of vacillation, hesitation and failing to give a lead. Now the Government are being accused of going ahead too rapidly, of taking too definite a policy, and of not waiting to make sure of the ground until every experiment has been made and every pilot scheme carried out. It is not profitable to use this debate to go back to the early stages, but your Lordships will remember the world food situation when the scheme was initiated. The urgency of the matter seemed then, and surely still seems, to have justified cutting a few corners and taking a few risks. Noble Lords opposite have made full use of the analogy of business. They talk of the money being wasted. The question is, what do they mean by "wasted"? I hope in a few minutes to show your Lord-ships that the money spent in East Africa on schemes such as this is a very definite contribution to the development of Africa and to the improvement of the conditions of our African citizens.

We have been a Colonial Empire for a long time. It is not too much to say that, in the past, we have run our Empire on the cheap. We have not invested money boldly and on a large scale. It seems to me that this scheme is going a long way to remedy the deficiencies and omissions of the past. The African's standard of living is deplorably low, as no one will deny. We have heard from the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading of the very low annual income per head of the population. Unfortunately, the popular conception of the African subject as a magnificent physical specimen is all too far from the truth. There has been malnutrition, shortage of food and disease in most parts of Africa, and the only way in which that state of affairs can be remedied is by improving the economic position of the country and its inhabitants. That means that we must improve the productivity of the soil and the productivity of the agricultural man-power. The only way in which that can be done is by introducing modern techniques, and they require capital and experience. We have to get away from the hand hoe, which is the time-honoured African agricultural implement. We cannot afford to wait, and this scheme takes a big step towards remedying those deficiencies.

I should like to refer to four aspects of the improvement that has been made to the conditions of Africans. First, there has been steady employment in Tanganyika Territory for a considerable number of Africans—employment which is not too far from their homes and which has removed the threat of famine and food shortage under which every African family has always lived. This has been confirmed by nutritional surveys in the area itself, in which the employees of the Corporation have been found to be better fed and healthier than Africans living outside the Corporation's sphere. Secondly, there is the question of health. The medical facilities provided by the Corporation have supplemented those of the Territory; and, as a result, thousands of Africans have had health facilities— both preventive medicine and curative medicine—which they would not have had if it had not been for the ground-nut scheme. That is a definite gain; and it has benefited not only the employees of the Corporation, because last year 20 per cent. of the 200,000 or so who attended the Corporation's clinics or were admitted to hospital came from outside the ranks of the employees. Thirdly, their housing has improved. As the scheme became more concentrated and more developed it became possible to provide housing of a greatly improved standard, better than the standard prevalent in the Territory outside.

Lastly, there is the matter of education. It is no good improving the African's health and giving him a modicum of education unless you can teach him those skills that are necessary to make the most of the soil on which he lives. The Corporation had to begin practically from scratch. The population in that part of the Tanganyika Territory are pastoralists or agriculturists. Apart from the sprinkling of ex-Service men who learnt a trade in the Forces, very few had any mechanical knowledge. The Corporation started by setting up their own training scheme; and so successful was it that last year 55 per cent. of the 15,000 men employed were of the skilled trades. They were all trained locally from local material. This gives good promise of the adaptability and latent mechanical ability of the African. That technical education was built on a foundation of elementary education, children's schools and so on. And all this has not only a direct but also an indirect effect, because not only do the men who are working for the Corporation derive the benefit, but the standards set by the Corporation spread over the whole country; and the ideas that men have learnt in this employment will spread and leaven the whole of the social and agricultural habits of the East Africans. To abandon the scheme now would be quite unthinkable. Not only should we forfeit our prestige as a Colonial Power, but the abandonment would be very much regretted by the Tanganyika Government and the people and would bring to a premature close what is a most promising chapter in African Colonial development.

4.26 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, I did not intend to speak to-day and I shall not speak for more than a few minutes, but, having looked up what I said on the original Act, I felt it would be only consistent to speak against this Bill too. I thank His Majesty's Government for having come round to my point of view that the enterprise should be handed over, first of all, to the Colonial Office. But I should like to know precisely what is going on. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, with great care and I found it difficult to discover precisely "what was up." Apparently the original scheme was introduced because we had only a 7 oz. fat ration at that time and required more. But there were approximately 3 to 4 oz. of the fat ration lying in Nigeria, waiting for rolling stock. That fact I mentioned in my speech on the original Act.

Then the noble Lord spoke about the battle against malnutrition—not the battle against malnutrition in this country, apparently, since we were told the other day that we in this country are remarkably well fed and that, therefore, that battle is not necessary here. The battle against malnutrition to which the noble Lord referred was in Africa. Therefore I take it that he was speaking of the feeding of the growing population of Africa. But a third object seems to have come into view and was mentioned by both Lord Ogmore and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and it is that the scheme is to be a sort of large-scale field trial, with scientific co-operation. What is the noble Lord's object? Is he thinking of the cultivation of the kitchen garden of Africa or is this to be merely a playground for agricultural scientists? Or is it merely a glorious symposium, the idea being that if you fail at one you can always say that the other was the real object? We should like a practical answer to that question. What is quite certain is that the Government's plantation is to function. Everyone in your Lordships' House welcomes the development of the Commonwealth and Empire, and none more than I do. But none is more averse than I to its being done by direct Government efforts. I believe it is entirely and absolutely wrong for the Government to go into large schemes of cultivation.

Noble Lords opposite seem to talk as though the world has never been developed. The world is, in fact, being developed. At this moment, for instance, great tracts of Brazil are being opened up. In India, great irrigation schemes are in progress. The whole process is going on all the time. The Government have not pioneered in this scheme in Africa; they have merely been using a different method of achieving the same end. How is it done elsewhere? The Government stick to their function. They first survey the ground and ascertain whether or not a commodity can be grown; whether the rainfall is suitable, and so on. Having made up their minds, they provide facilities which other people need to develop the area. In the first place, they provide, perhaps, a railway and possibly feeder roads and electricity; and also, maybe, irrigation. Then the individuals come in and do the pioneering. Individuals come in for many reasons. All over the world there will be found men who are restless. They will always be attracted by the lure of something new. They come in in search of gain. They do not come in in search of gain through growing crops—there is little gain usually to be found in that— but they come in with the hope of a capital gain. They see land going at extremely cheap prices—Is. an acre being the sort of once which land in those outlandish places fetches. They think: "We will buy a block of, say, 5,000 acres and in ten or twenty years' time, when the place is opened up, we shall be able to sell it a twenty times what we paid for it." That is the way the backwoods are developed: through the sense of adventure and the lure of gain to the individual, all very wicked, of course, to noble Lords opposite.

The people who can go in will be either individuals or plantation companies. Tropical agriculture is appallingly difficult. The hazards are tremendous. Some members of the Socialist Party, speaking in various places, seem to forget the difficulties of tropical agriculture. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Croft, who had great experience in these matters, telling me that in East Africa he had tried to grow every conceivable crop, and had succeeded in making a loss on every one of them. When it was not blight, it was baboons. The British and the Dutch have the greatest tropical agricultural experts in the world. If the Government get a scheme going by providing the facilities, they can then go to our great experts, and they should come in. If they refuse to come in, there is a pretty good reason for believing that the scheme is not a good one. The Government can go a bit further. They can perhaps offer to take some share themselves. If, in spite of that, the real experts still refuse to come in, one may be certain that the scheme is not worth proceeding with.

Growing things in the soil is rather like mining for minerals. There are enormous deposits of minerals all over the world, but at the moment only those are worked which it is profitable for men to work. In the same way, the amount of soil cultivated depends on the pressure on the soil at any given moment. In times of boom prices and so on. there is a chance to extend, and in times of low prices the reverse occurs. At the moment, we are passing through a time of almost unprecedented boom prices for all agricultural products. I believe that these 3,000,000 acres may well be cultivated one day, perhaps not in my Lifetime but in the lifetime of my children or my children's children. As the population of the world advances, and as science advances, it may become possible for the cultivation to be done economically, but in the meantime I do not think we should continue with these 250,000 acres without a full inquiry. I cannot help feeling that His Majesty's Government are rather frightened of the result of such an inquiry; otherwise they would not insist on refusing it.

4.34 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I think all your Lordships will agree that we have had an interesting debate, in the course of which a number of valuable suggestions have been made. I will try to deal with the main points that have arisen, and to satisfy noble Lords on the various questions that they have raised. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has charged us with developing East Africa to the detriment of West, and has said in fact, though not perhaps in actual words, that we have neglected the production of ground-nuts in West Africa and the expansion of the railway there because of the work that was done in East Africa. In fact, this has not been the case. If this large development of ground-nuts could have taken place in West Africa, it is odd that the corporation with probably the largest experience of growing plantation crops in West Africa should have recommended the East Africa scheme. I refer to the United Africa Company. No one has had more experience in this field in West Africa than they have, and they were the people who recommended, and indeed originated, this scheme in East Africa. Knowing full well the situation as regards the production of ground-nuts in the West, at no time have we allowed the East African adventure in any way to imperil the future of the West African industry.

It was said, and we were advised, that in West Africa there could be only a marginal increase in supplies, and that no very great increase could be expected after the work that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the officers serving under him had done in that field during the war. That was our advice. On the question of closing down the scheme, I told the noble Viscount that I would give him the breakdown of the overall figure which would probably be incurred if we abandoned the scheme. The Corporation would have to find a little over £1,000,000, as compensation for various interests and for breach of contract in connection with transportation in the Southern Province. Other major contracts with suppliers would add another £300,000. Under the general heading of "personnel," there would be costs for termination of contracts and for salaries while waiting passage to the United Kingdom. That, together with the cost of those passages, is estimated at £1,650,000. There would be miscellaneous commitments, amounting to £500,000, in relation to the dispersal of African labour and the breaking of supply contracts. The cost of concentration, maintenance and disposal of surplus assets is estimated at £1,000,000. Adding that up. we find that it comes (if my arithmetic is correct) to £4,450,000. That is roughly £4,500,000, which was the figure given in another place.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Might I have the last £1,000,000 reference again? I do not follow that. Why is it that that is not incurred if we carry on, and is incurred if we stop?

LORD OGMORE

Because, as I am informed, that is the cost of concentrating the movable vehicles, the plant and machinery at the centres, first of all, either in Kongwa or Urambo or in the Southern Province, then moving them down to the ports or whatever place is decided upon for the auction sale, and keeping them in good condition in the meantime.

LORD STRABOLGI

Making dumps?

LORD OGMORE

Yes, making dumps, probably at a port where people could come and purchase, either at auction or by private contract.

LORD LLOYD

Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? Does that take into account any sums which might be expected to be realised by the auction of those assets, or are those amounts not included? Is that the net figure? If the assets are disposed of, large sums will presumably be realised which should more than cover the cost of their concentration and of disposal.

LORD OGMORE

No, that is not covered, because the value of the assets taken over exists in the books of the Corporation as having been taken over. Therefore you do not deduct the value of the assets taken over from the cost of disposal. This is an additional sum which is to be expended over and above the amount that is expendable if the Corporation take them over.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am sorry again to interrupt the noble Lord, who is being very helpful about this matter, but do I understand that the writing down of all these vehicles and machinery has been carried out and is reflected in the £36,000,000? We have written off £36,000,000, and the whole of these assets stand at one penny value in the balance sheet. Therefore, having amortised them down to nothing, you had better leave them where they are.

LORD OGMORE

I was coming on to that point, because I think there has been some great misunderstanding about it. In fact the £36,000,000 is written off because it was a loan out of the Consolidated Fund. Of course, the whole of that money has not been lost, and I am sure noble Lords will make that clear if they are ever challenged on it on public platforms or elsewhere. There are a great variety of assets in the shape of hospitals, plant of various kinds, stores, schools, houses, cleared and cultivated land, water supplies and so on. There are movable assets such as bulldozers, lorries, earth-clearing machinery and a hundred-and-one other items of constructional or agricultural value. Of course there will be cash receipts from the sale of the surplus assets, because the Corporation are not taking over all the assets. They are going to decide what assets are needed to enable them to conduct the smaller-scale project. The surplus assets will be sold and that money will be returned to the Exchequer, and will go some way to relieving the £36,000,000 which has been written off.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I thought that item of receipts from surplus assets was amongst the receipts which were to be deducted from the £13,500,000 of new expenditure, to reduce that figure to £6,000,000. But if it is not, and if it is to be deducted from the £36,000,000 which we are now writing off, I do not understand what are the £7,500,000 receipts which reduced the £13,500,000 to £6,000,000.

LORD OGMORE

The receipts are estimated to be the yield from sale of produce. The noble Viscount was quite right in saying that this was only an estimation. If there had been actual physical assets, then of course we could estimate the value far more clearly than has been, possible. But that, I understand, is the position, and I hope I have satisfied the noble Viscount on the facts, because those are the facts.

LORD LLOYD

Would the noble Lord forgive me for putting another point to him? As I understand it, one of the arguments of the Government for proceeding with the new scheme is the expense of completely discontinuing operations. I think that is correct.

LORD OGMORE

Yes.

LORD LLOYD

If you are going to dispose of these assets, and it is part of the argument that here is £1,000,000 which is going to be needed, I should think (and perhaps the noble Lord will agree) that it is only fair to set against the cost of the disposal of the assets the sale price which is realised for them. If that is the noble Lord's argument, then I do not think the figure given is quite a fair one with which to support his argument. I think he should have included the sale price of the assets against that £1,000,000.

LORD OGMORE

Quite frankly, I thought at first that that was the way they were doing it. Now I have gone into it, I understand that it is not so. As the noble Lord said, it is perfectly true that you can have a book item and you can set it off, debiting the Corporation with the amount of the assets which they have taken over. In fact it has not been done in that way, and as it is only a book item I do not think it matters much in the long run. The assets that the Corporation retain will be retained at the value they stand at in the books; the Corporation will not get them at any cheaper value, because they are assets which they have had possibly for some years.

LORD LLOYD

It does not matter, except for the noble Lord's argument.

LORD OGMORE

You can adopt either the cue course or the other. The argument the Government valuers have suggested is quite a sound one; but I do not think you can mix the two systems up. It is one which I think we can now all agree gives a clear answer to the public. On the question of the railways, I regret to say that I gave the noble Viscount some misleading information when I intervened. Of course there are two railways, and I had assumed that the operating guarantee and the construction advance related to one and the other, but in fact both relate to the railway in the Southern Province. The guarantee to the East African Railway and Harbour refers to the operating losses which may be incurred on the Southern Province Railway. It is a liability if the scheme continues, but it is not a liability if it does not. It is only then a continuing liability. If the Corporation close down and the railway is noS completed, the Corporation are not entitled to recover the £3,000,000 advanced for the construction of the railway. It is a liability which, if the Corporation is closed down, will just be written off.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I hope I am not cross-examining the noble Lord too much, but could I know this? The £3,000,000, or perhaps more, has been spent on construction. Apparently we may get that back at some stage. But shall we get it back only if the railway shows a profit?

LORD OGMORE

Yes.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

It is not just a loan for a few years or a short-term money advance to the East African Government to spend on construction. If it is done, it is done by the East Africans as agents for the Corporation, and unless the railway makes a profit out of which the loan can be repaid, presumably we shall not be repaid the loan at all.

LORD OGMORE

That is true. But, after all, East African Railways are a big concern. They operate the Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika Railways, and they may be in a position to say, "We can easily afford to spend £3,000,000 on this particular line." In regard to the Southern Province, I think the railway is vital from the point of view of the development of Central Africa, and I personally hope that the East African Railways will go through to Lake Nyasa. All that area will undoubtedly be opened up one day. We all know of the congestion existing at the port of Beira, which is the one port in Central Africa, and the congestion on the Nyasaland Railway. I hope that this stretch of railway will not close down but that East African Railways will find it in their power to continue with it, because it will embrace, as it were, the hinterland of the Southern Province, which has considerable possibilities, and will enable Nyasaland to send its produce down to a port entailing a much easier haul than the haul to Beira. Perhaps that is a different consideration, but it does mean that from the rather broader viewpoint of the Corporation the £3,000,000 may still be well spent in the end.

The question of an independent inquiry has been fairly well canvassed in another place, and the arguments are no doubt well-known to noble Lords. This is not a new scheme (as I have said already, it is only a reduction in scale of an existing project) and it is intended to experiment with different crops—tobacco, cotton, and rice—in addition to the ground-nuts, maize and sorghum with which the Corporation have already been dealing. They have also had cattle at Kongwa. The Government believe that matters would be delayed very considerably if an independent inquiry were to be held. No better or more highly qualified persons than those who have given their advice through the Overseas Food Corporation could be wished for. Your Lordships will no doubt know most of these people. I could read out a list of their names, but I think I need say only that they are men of great reputation, who have had vast experience in agriculture, both in this country and abroad; they are, in fact, men whose names. I feel sure, will command great respect from your Lordships.

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked a question about the sorghum surplus. Perhaps I did refer to it as a surplus but it is a surplus simply in the sense that it was the amount not used locally. This is very much a case of the tail wagging the dog, because out of the total of 28,000 tons we got 25,500 tons, which was the lion's share of the sorghum that was grown. The Ministry of Food fully appreciate the need for animal feeding stuffs, and they will always bear this necessity in their minds. They will no doubt consult with the Queensland Government and the Queensland Corporation as to how best Lord Llewellin's views can be put into practice. The 28,000 tons was the harvest of 1949–1950. Personally, in agricultural matters, I do not like making large estimates of the increased yield that we expect from future harvests. It may be that this year we shall get the 40,000 tons to which the noble Lord referred, but I think it is safer to stick to the figure for the yield which we have already had. If Lord Llewellin is correct and we do get 40,000 tons, I am sure that all noble Lords will be delighted. I am grateful to Lord Llewellin for what he said, and I am sure that his visit, and that of the other members of the Parliamentary delegation, to the Queensland project gave great encouragement end had a profound effect on the morale of the people working on the scheme.

May I now say a word or two with regard to the last speech, that of Lord Hawke? He asked: Why Government intervention? He said—and perhaps rightly, although I myself probably would not have spoken as he did of private enterprise being dependent upon the possibility of gain—that private enterprise would go into a territory only in search of gain, and that there was no gain in these crops. I do not think that is so. I think that very often the love of adventure has actuated pioneers—it has not always been love of gain. However, I am not here to argue the matter on behalf of private enterprise, so I shall carry that point no further. I should like to add that Governments have often been under the necessity of developing areas with which it would have been unfair to expect private enterprise to concern themselves. I have said nothing to-day criticising private enterprise for not developing these areas. I do not expect them to do so. I do not think that people in private enterprise are able to stand the tremendous capital charges which are called for before there is any possibility of return. They cannot face the prospect of locking up great amounts of capital in many of these areas. The whole point of schemes of this sort is that Governments or international agencies must do a good deal by way of pilot schemes and the like to ascertain whether it is possible to develop these under-developed areas.

To-day, I suppose, there are few more profitable crops than rubber. Yet I think —and the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, will no doubt bear this out—what Sir Frank Swettenham says in his book about this industry is true. He devotes several pages to showing the difficulty which the Government experienced in the early days in getting anyone to take an interest in rubber growing in Malaya. He writes of the tremendous amount of work which Government officers had to do to foster that infant industry. In this connection, I recently read a work by a district officer of the Gold Coast, in which he wrote of the difficulty which had been experienced in getting private enterprise to take up the growing of cocoa there. In other words, in many cases it is necessary—and I believe that it will always be necessary—to have Government intervention in places where private enterprise, owing to its very nature, is unable or unwilling to intervene. Finally, in answer to Lord Hawke, I would say once more that this is a largescale field experiment, combined with scientific research, and that we hope to develop a pattern of agriculture suitable to the soil to the climate and to the people. That is our object.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.