WORLD POPULATION AND RESOURCES

HL Deb 28 April 1954 vol 187 cc123-200

3.34 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, there will probably be some disagreement during this debate. I should be most surprised if there were unanimous agreement upon every point. But I am sure we shall all agree in expressing our appreciation of the action of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in initiating the debate and our gratitude to him for doing so with such cogency and clarity. We in this House always look forward to his interventions. We know that we shall enjoy, and we do enjoy, clarity. But while listening to the noble Viscount, I could not help thinking of yesterday's debate. Lord Samuel contrasted this House with another place and referred to some difference between the two Chambers. I thought that yesterday's debate and to-day's debate provided another difference, and in this matter I think the other place would find it difficult to equal your Lordships' House. Our debate yesterday was opened by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, now in his eighty-third year. To-day's debate has been opened by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in his eighty-fourth year. I would challenge the other place to beat that.

Yesterday's debate dealt with finance as a factor in world affairs. To-day's debate relates to food as a factor in world affairs. These matters are very closely related. The question of world population is possibly the most important question that confronts us at the present time. It is one of our real and pressing problems, and linked, as it must be, with that of world food resources it becomes one of the problems to which we must give immediate attention. I do not see how we can get agreement on other issues if we fail to get agreement on this one. If the countries of the world are not prepared to co-operate on this issue of providing adequate supplies of food for the world's population, I am very doubtful whether they will co-operate on any other issue at all.

I have mentioned the clarity and the cogency of the introductory speech. I thought I saw the same clarity and the same cogency in the terms of the Motion itself. It begins: To draw attention to the continuing and rapid increase in world population … Your Lordships will note that it says both "continuing" and "rapid." Had it been continuing without being rapid I do not think we should have had this Motion, because the increase must be continuing. And there are times when it must be rapid—it always has been rapid for a period after world wars. But it is when it is both continuing and rapid that the great problem is created; and that is the situation to-day. I have no more intention than the noble Viscount of tiring your Lordships by putting before you figure after figure. One has been supplied with an enormous number of figures, but I think that the pertinent ones have already been given by the noble Viscount, and I do not feel that it is necessary for me to produce any more to enable us to realise the importance of the issue. The noble Viscount, I would say, has provided ample evidence for the Motion which he has placed on the Order Paper. What do we do now? We could sit back and bemoan the fact that the rapid increase in world population may be out of pace with the increase in the world's food supply. That, of course, will not help.

For myself, I want to deal with this question of food as a problem to be dealt with by the human race. It has been a problem for the individual right down the ages. The first cry of every child born into the world, no matter who its parents are, no matter in what country it is born or what the circumstances are in which it is born, is always the same: it cries for attention to be given to its physical needs. And for the vast mass of the human family, that has been a continuous cry, ended only by death. That is the position to-day. The noble Viscount has used the words: if present standards of living are to be maintained and improved. I was pleased to note that he used the plural—"standards of living"—and not the singular. There is plurality here. The average standard of living in some countries is in a much higher category than the highest standard of living in some other countries. The highest standard of living in some countries is immeasurably lower than the standard of living in other countries. I think that some standards of living to-day are such that they will not be improved, except at the expense of some of those peoples who are on the low standards.

It is no use pretending that even to-day, when we have to-day's food supplies and to-day's population, the reason why so many are experiencing poverty, penury and privation is purely shortage of supplies. That is not the reason. We in your Lordships' House must know that there is another reason—namely, the maldistribution of food in the world, though it is no use pretending to-day that if we distributed fairly all the food of the world to all the peoples of the world we should solve our problems. We should not, I agree. This question of the standard of living, of maintaining and improving present standards, will need to be examined very carefully, and also the question whether we shall be able to deal with this world problem without a reduction in some standards of living which are being enjoyed to-day. I agree that it is a problem not only for individuals but for countries. I agree entirely with the noble Viscount that, in the words he used, the battle will be lost or won in the areas affected by the low standards.

Each country is confronted by this problem, and each country in its own way is trying to deal with it. But it is not the same problem in every country. In some countries there is a continuous and rapid increase of population, but not in our country. It will not be our problem in years to come. Our problem may well be unbalance between the number of consumers and the number of producers. That may be the problem of many other countries; but for the world in general the problem is rapid increase in population; it is so in certain areas, and those happen to be the most populous areas. On this issue—I speak for myself entirely—I do not think any country can attempt to solve its own population problem without having regard to what is happening in other countries. After all, what is happening in other countries to-day does matter to each individual country; and the number of producers in each country must be related, to some extent, to the number of consumers in that country.

It is to me a great consolation to know that some of these countries in the Far East are taking vigorous action in this matter. I was delighted to know that in India—and there is no country which is worse affected by this problem than India—action is being taken. I have here a publication, which I think is a most valuable one, by Political and Economic Planning, which contains an important commentary by the Registrar-General for India, on the Census of India, 1951. In this, says the Report, he considers the rate at which the population of India is likely to increase up to 1981 and the possibility of providing the necessary food. The publication goes on: The Census reports that the population of India in 1951 was 360 million. It is nearly certain that the population will rise to 520 million in 1981 unless (a) there is a breakdown of food supplies bringing in its wake epidemic and famine; or (b) the people should begin voluntarily to limit child-bearing. The Registrar-General goes on to discuss whether India can feed 520 million: 'We have seen that during the three decades before 1951 cultivation per capita has been steadily declining and food shortage growing. 'Food shortage which has grown in the past might—if permitted—grow still further, with the result that the distribution of food supplies might break down, as it did in 1943 in Bengal. If this happens over extensive areas for a few years in succession, it will bring in its wake famine and epidemic diseases on the scale which prevailed during 1891–1900. These conceivable developments might be described as the "catastrophe". The Report concludes that the twin policies of agricultural development and reduction of births must be simultaneously pursued. If these two points are accorded equal priority over all others they can be attained before the population increases beyond 450 million…. Mr. Nehru has stated that if the population of India to-day were half what it is, the standard of living and of civilisation would be much improved. I would not call that a profound statement. If the population were halved, I can well imagine there would be a substantial improvement in the standard of living. But there is the position in India, and they are tackling it with some vigour and I think with some vision.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think it is fair to the India Government to add to that interesting description their achievement last year, and I venture to intervene merely because I was given the figures when I was there just before Christmas. I think I am right in saying that last year the production of food in India had gone up by 5 million tons above what it had been the year before. That is a remarkable achievement.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I think I can leave the question of India where it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe is going to deal with India in some detail, and I understand he has some detailed knowledge of the subject.

Coming to the world aspect, I think it is not easily realised how difficult it is going to be to handle the problem. I have been flooded with literature, as I dare say your Lordships have, since it was known that I might be taking part in this debate. I have done my best to read that literature. I asked the noble Viscount to-day whether he was going to be in good form, and he said, "I will do my best, but there is so much material to be ploughed through." I said, "I have been pondering over book after book and leaflet after leaflet for weeks." He said, "Yes; and the more you ponder the more ponderous you will be." I think that is true: the more one ponders over it, the more difficult it is to find a clear lane through it.

I have been reading a book called In a Million Years, written by Sir Charles Darwin, the grandson of Charles Darwin. It is a very good book indeed, though most of my friends do not seem to think so. It is gloomy in its prognostications; it is not the best book to go to bed on; and when you have read it you do not feel hopeful about the future of humanity. But I feel that Sir Charles Darwin has faced up to this problem. I ventured to send him a copy of to-day's Order Paper and ask him for his comments on this Motion. The book is fearless and forcible, and so is his reply. He has no objection to my reading the reply, though I need not read the whole. I quote: You will appreciate that I can't judge how far anything I say fits into politics, but here are my thoughts on your House of Lords debate. … Whatever is produced, there will always be too many mouths for it. That this is so in the long run is the main thesis of my book. … In fact, I consider the business entirely urgent, in the sense that I believe that though I shall be dead myself, my sons will see quite a lot of degeneration in world conditions. I am told by agricultural experts that with first-class organisation all round it would be possible to double food production for the whole world, but that more could not be expected. I see no prospect of getting worldwide agreement for such perfect organization, so I would say that 50 per cent. increase is about as much as could be hoped for. The rate of increase of world population is about a doubling in a century, which means they would catch up with the 50 per cent. in 50 or 60 years or so. That is why I consider the bad time will be witnessed by people now living. … So I consider Lord Samuel would have asked a really important question if he had put it in the form: 'What measures are Her Majesty's Government taking to diminish the rapid rate of population increase' in general. I am certain that our rulers—of all Parties—ought to wake up to the fact that this is far and away the most important problem in the world, and that to go on promising eternally improving standards of life is quite unrealistic. There may be a number of noble Lords who agree with that point of view and a number who differ, but one thing upon which we shall all agree is that it deserves serious consideration. After all, families make up this world. It is the number of families and their size that determines world population, and if it is suggested that the family is a sacred entity and that no one must touch it, that there must be no attempt to regulate it or try to limit its size, then with Sir Charles Darwin I would suggest that the future is discouraging indeed. I know that it is a delicate matter. Any father—and I am a grandfather of seven—knows that it is a delicate matter. But though it is a delicate and difficult matter, there is no reason for running away from it.

I well remember that in Sydney, in May, 1950, when we were hammering out the Colombo Plan, a delegate asked, if we agreed to the proposed Plan, to what extent the standard of living in the affected area would be improved. The reply came, in that typically Eastern placid manner, "None. If we can maintain the present standard of living for the increased population during the period of the Plan, we shall do wonderfully well." Another member of the delegation asked, very quietly, "But do you think anything is going to be done about this question of increased population in South and South-East Asia?" The reply was that there were moral and religious issues involved. There may well be such issues involved, but if this matter is left where it is, I do not see any hope of dealing with world population. If, as the noble Viscount suggests, it is to be simply a race between soil fertility and human fertility, if we are told that we must not interfere in any way with the family we shall lose that race.

I should like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply a not too difficult question: will he give us what information he has regarding the activity of the United Nations, or any of its Agencies, in the matter of family limitation? Is the matter being brought home to the peoples in those areas? Let me say, especially in the presence of the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of York, that I have the utmost sympathy with those who approach food and economic problems from moral and spiritual considerations. I think there Is a real danger, when dealing with man, in dealing with him as a collection of bits and pieces, not realising what a grand and noble being he is—the finest this world ever saw or will see, the peak of creation. There is a danger in trying to solve our economic problems by methods and processes which do not regard man as an intellectual, moral and spiritual being. I have seen that danger become a reality in individuals who have tried to solve their economic problems without much regard to intellectual or spiritual values. Nations have disregarded these moral and spiritual questions, but where are they and where will they be? The fate of those nations is certain. I hope that in any plan which we may put forward or encourage in international discussions we shall have regard to an economic plan which at the same time will safeguard our intellectual, moral and spiritual values.

What is the basic difference between materialistic Communism and our own attitude? Who would be bold enough to deny that universal Communism would solve this food problem? I am prepared to admit, here and now, that universal Communism could feed the world, it may be by ruthless methods—I think it would be. But of this I am sure: materialistic Communism will not solve the problem and safeguard intellectual, moral and spiritual development, and I believe that the Western world can. That is one reason why I can never accept materialistic Communism. It sees man too much as an economic being but nothing more. Important though it is to deal with the economic problem, and to deal with it successfully, we can do that permanently only to the extent we regard the problem as one for a policy that will safeguard intellectual, moral and spiritual development. No other method will find a permanent solution of this question.

I would refer briefly to the last part of the Motion, which may be the most important sentence: It says: to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give a conspectus of the measures now being taken by United Nations, the British Commonwealth, and other countries to promote the productivity of under-developed regions; and to move for Papers. In case the noble Earl who is to reply had not time to make sure what "conspectus" meant I took the trouble of looking it up in the Oxford Dictionary—it was rather a new word to me. For the information the noble Earl, the dictionary meaning was "a general view, a comprehensive survey." I hope that the noble Earl will keep that in mind when replying, and be able to satisfy the noble Viscount and others. The order of the organisations mentioned in the Motion is correct. I have no fault to find with the priority given. I agree with the noble Viscount that the British Commonwealth has rendered great service in undeveloped areas—though I would say, in passing, not in every case in the interests of those living in these areas. I believe that individual countries, and the United Kingdom in particular, have done their share. We have a past to be proud of in this regard, but I am satisfied that we are not going to deal effectively with this problem unless it is dealt with under the auspices and through the organisation of the United Nations. It may be that, owing to the United Nations not agreeing to tackle certain questions, we may have to set up Commissions to do the work, as we did at Sydney, Colombo and London.

I was sorry that I did not hear the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, yesterday. I had intended to hear him, but I did not know that he was to speak so early. The noble Viscount made a powerful appeal that something should be done to get to know what is the position inside the Commonwealth, especially with regard to raw materials, which are vital factors in food production. I agree that owing to the ineffectiveness, for the time being, of the United Nations, the Commonwealth may be compelled to take action; but any action taken by any group of nations outside the United Nations or without their approval is not received at all well by the rest of the world. In October, 1950, we published the Colombo Plan. At that time I was a delegate to the Fifth Assembly of the United Nations, and then it was suggested that, as I had been connected with the Plan from beginning to end, I might do a little to enlighten the Americans on this issue. Conferences were arranged here and throughout the United States. I remember well the Conference in New York. All the editors of the New York newspapers, and all the broadcasters living in New York, assembled at lunch. I addressed them on the Colombo Plan and I answered questions. But I felt very keenly that we were suspect. The acceptance of the Plan was friendly. Their actions since then have shown more than friendliness, but there was something lurking in the minds of some of the questioners as to whether this was not another attempt by the British Commonwealth to fasten its grip on that part of the world.

The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, referred to Russia being active in some sense or another. Have we ever known any activity in which Russia indulges which does not create suspicion? Do we not all suspect what Russia is up to? There is the same feeling throughout. In the Far East we are gradually removing that feeling, and I believe that along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount we may still remove it. But it is far better for us to take action on this question, if we can, under the auspices and through the Agencies of the United Nations. I agree that there may be occasions when we must do it in some other way, but, if possible, we should take this action through the United Nations. We shall not solve the problem by taking action in any other way, but the United Nations may solve it for us in that way.

I should like to put to the noble Earl who is to reply one question with regard to the Colombo Plan. To-day there are a vast number of Agencies in association under the Colombo Plan, each with a specified area of activity. I should like to know to what extent the various activities are being co-ordinated and are working to the same end. It is now three and a half years since the Plan came into operation. What are the results to-day, as compared with two years ago, when the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, reported on the then position of the Colombo Plan? This debate will end in a few hours' time. I was calculating, when the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was giving his figures, that during the duration of this debate the population of the world will be increased by 15,000. I should feel much happier if I were satisfied that the increase in productivity, now and in the future, was going to keep pace with that terrific rate of increase in population.

I sincerely hope (I am not a pessimist on this issue) that the optimism of the noble Viscount will be fully justified, and that the world resources can and will be increased in such a way that the population of the world will be provided for. But let me say once again that I am satisfied that, if it is a case of a race between soil fertility and race fertility, then we are doomed. Something has got to be done about that delicate and difficult question. If this generation succeeds in making a substantial contribution toward solving this problem it will be of great benefit to the next generation; but if we fail, how much more intensified will be the struggle of the next generation! My wish—and I know that it is the wish of every noble Lord—is that we should make a contribution that will help to rid the world of this poverty and privation Mr. Harold Wilson, the President of the Board of Trade in the late Labour Government, wrote a book about a year ago called The War on World Poverty. He concluded one of his chapters with these words: The war on world poverty, which must be Britain's historic mission in what remains of the twentieth century, is the only way in which we in the more favoured countries can fulfil our obligations to 1,500 million people all over the world; and, lifting our eyes above the tensions and struggles of world politics, we shall find that in fighting this war we are treading the way, the one way only, to peace and a more abundant life for all mankind. I would add one sentence to that quotation. When I receive the multiplicity of peace plans that are sent to me from time to time I always examine them to see to what extent they are going to deal with this problem. No peace plan will ever be successful unless it deals with this problem of world population and world food resources.

4.5 p.m.

LORD BOYD-ORR

My Lords, I am sure we all agree that this debate, which has been so ably opened by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, deals with a subject of the utmost importance. It should deal not only with population and food supplies, but also with raw materials for industry, because the only hope of getting the world food supplies developed is by increasing industrial development. It is a remarkable thing that this subject has created much more interest in the United States than in this country. In the last few years two official committees have been set up by the American Government to consider the question of population in relation to energy output and in relation to material resources. It is no wonder that the United States should be interested in this matter, because they have been galloping through their resources at a tremendous rate. The quantity of metals and mineral fuels which has been consumed in the United States since the last war is greater than the total amount that has been consumed by all other countries all over the world since the beginning of history. They have gone through their resources at such a rate that, although they inherited a wealthy mineral country, now of one hundred of the minerals they use in industry they are entirely dependent on imports for one-third of them and partly dependent on imports for another third. They are not stopping there, because these committees predict that within twenty-five years the American consumption of energy and materials will be doubled, or nearly doubled.

But all countries are being industrialised as rapidly as possible; and if all countries in the world are going to use up the resources at that same rate, then we must consider seriously at what time our mineral resources will be exhausted. This is a question on which experts differ. There is no danger of their being exhausted in the next fifty years at least; and no person can foretell what new devices science will bring out. But even if these irreplaceable resources were exhausted, the energy and material which could be got from the renewable resources—timber, other vegetable resources, hydro-electric plant and solar energy—would be sufficient to maintain a much higher output energy per head than that of the world at the present time, and could support a high standard of living, though it might be that, if not our children, then probably our grandchildren, due to exhaustion of certain resources, might have to do without jet planes and atomic bombs.

But there is one source which is of immediate importance, and that is the food-producing resources. In 1946 international committees estimated that in twenty-five years, in view of the increase in the population, it would be necessary to double world food production. Two years later, Mr. Milton Eisenhower, a brother of the President and a man as renowned in his own line as the President, estimated that in the next twenty-five years world food production would need to be increased by 108 per cent. The two estimates are in fairly close agreement. If the present trend of population continues, we shall have to double food production in the next twenty-five years; and if the population of the world continues to increase at the rate it is doing now we shall need nearly to double it again in the following twenty-five years. That is a very big order, and we have seriously to consider whether the earth can support such a large population.

There are two views on this matter, and full weight must be given to both. There are those who say that it will be impossible for the earth to support the large population of fifty years hence. The population, will probably increase to 4,000 million by the end of the present century. They also point out that food producing resources are being lost through soil erosion. Soil erosion is a subject which does not cause much interest in this country, because North-West Europe and Egypt are the only two places in the world where soil erosion is not a serious problem. In Egypt they get a new covering of silt each year from the Nile, and in North-West Europe, with its temperate climate, erosion is not a big problem. But it is a big problem in practically all other parts of the world.

According to the report of the head of the soil conservation service, one-third of the fertile soil of America has been lost since the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth Rock. In Pakistan, where they are bringing in new irrigation schemes, the head of the service informed me when I was there that in his view more land was being lost through soil erosion and the salting of the land than was being brought in through the extension of irrigation schemes. The people who take that view say: "Here is this rising tide of population, increasing at an enormous rate; and with modern preventive medicine it looks like increasing faster in the future. On the other hand, there is this disappearance of the resources of the earth." One writer I was reading recently said that the last fight in the world will be a fight for food to determine which nations are going to survive and which nations are going to die.

There is another view which has been put forward with great cogency by my noble friend Lord Samuel. That view, which is possibly too optimistic, says that with modern engineering science and agricultural science it is difficult to set limits to the amount of food which can be produced. My noble friend rightly said that in this country, which has a highly developed agricultural industry, production during the war was increased by 50 per cent. with less labour; and in America, in spite of the great soil erosion, production was increased by 40 per cent. It is the view of many experienced people who have spent their lifetime studying this subject that if all the land in the world at present under cultivation were brought up to the best in that area, world food production would be doubled. One could give many examples of that. Take grass production in this country. The best farms have doubled their output of grass, and if all the farms were brought up to that standard there could be a big increase in the output of dairy products and meat.

If the land resources fail to produce sufficient, the chemist can come in and make food from sawdust. The Swedes fed their animals and themselves high protein food made from wood. The Indians have set up a factory to produce synthetic milk. Protein can also be produced from yeast. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, protein can be produced from algæ and other plankton. Then the soil erosion bogy can be stopped. Attempts are now being made to stop it by vast reafforestation schemes and by water control schemes. In that way erosion can be stopped, and land which has been lost can be again brought back into cultivation. If the people of the world suffer from a shortage of food in the next fifty years, it will not be due to lack of knowledge or to the niggardliness of nature. But though it is easy in theory to increase food, it is not so easy in practice. In the Eastern countries—the food deficit countries—where the production of food must be increased, there are the social difficulties of land tenure and so on, and also religious difficulties. One of the main difficulties is the lack of a highly efficient and incorruptible Civil Service which can carry through the vast schemes needed. These are difficulties which may be removed, but there are also economic difficulties—they have neither the needed equipment nor the funds to obtain this increase.

We cannot look at food production as if it were an isolated problem by itself. We have to consider food production in relation to other subjects, especially economics, because the food trade is the biggest trade in the world and 60 per cent. Of the whole population of the world depend for their livelihood on agriculture. Now I should like to speak about the economic problem which the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, discussed yesterday. It is as big a problem as the food problem, and I hope to show your Lordships that the two problems can cancel each other out. Lord Bruce of Melbourne pointed out yesterday that America has increased its industrial capacity by about 100 per cent. since 1938, and Canada has increased hers a little faster. European countries are increasing theirs, too. Russia, the Argentine, Australia—in fact the whole world—are increasing their industrial capacity, and the difficulty will be to find the markets; to find a rapidly expanding world economy to correspond with the rapidly increasing industrial capacity so that the goods which this great industrial machine can produce can be distributed and consumed. Even at the present day, when such a large part of our industrial machinery is devoted to rearmament, there is difficulty in finding markets. Unemployment is now appearing in the United States and Canada, and they are finding it difficult to find markets. If rearmament should slow down, we have to find a market to replace the market for arms. We must create a rapidly expanding world economy which will absorb and consume what this tremendous new industrial machine can produce. That economic problem is as important for the world as the food problem, because a breakdown in markets with another economic crisis like 1930 would be as great a catastrophe as a shortage of food.

Now I am going to suggest that these two problems might cancel each other out. If world food production is to be doubled, we shall need enormous quantities of industrial equipment, fifty to a hundred projects like the T.V.A., many millions of agricultural implements, and transport by road and railways. This will provide an outlet for heavy industries. And if you double world food production, you double the income of 60 per cent. of the world's population, and you provide a greatly increased market for consumer goods. Therefore, these two great problems might cancel each other out.

This is not a new idea. Your Lordships will remember the unemployment in the 1930's. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, went to the League of Nations and put forward this very conception to the League of Nations. What they said was this: "There is unemployment and farmers are going bankrupt. Let us increase food production up to the level for health. It will bring prosperity to agriculture, and the prosperity of agriculture will increase markets and overflow into other industries. The only way to deal with unemployment is not to stop producing but to increase the wealth of the world and double and re-double world trade." That idea went down well at the League of Nations. Committees were appointed, and a Committee, with the late Lord Astor as Chairman, which brought together leading authorities on finance, economics, agriculture and various other subjects, considered what ought to be done to solve the two problems of insufficient food for the people and unemployment.

Their report was published. I found difficulty in getting a copy in this country. I was told that it was a bestseller in America. That report was sent to Governments, and within a year the representatives of twenty-two Governments had met at Geneva to consider how they could co-operate to carry through this big idea of solving the economic problem and solving the world food problem. Unfortunately, that came to an end with the outbreak of war. The idea was then transferred to America, largely by the same people, the British and the others who were at Geneva. I well remember twice during the war being invited by the Americans to go across to discuss this subject. I remember discussing it with Mr. Cordell Hull and Mr. Wendell Willkie—a man for whom I had a great admiration because he was a first-class business man who looked at this problem from a business point of view—and also Dean Acheson, who was good enough to draw up an excellent memorandum on the subject which put the matter much more clearly than I could have done. Others were discussing the subject with Secretaries of State. Then there was Mr. McDougall, who was attached to the Australian Embassy and whom I regarded as the great evangelist preaching economic salvation through increased food production.

In 1944 President Roosevelt called the Hot Springs Conference to consider how modern science could be used to develop the resources of the earth, beginning with food, bring about industrial prosperity after the war period and prevent an economic crisis such as had occurred after the first war. He had the idea. It was also thought that getting the nations to co-operate in this world-wide project of developing the resources of the earth for their mutual benefit would prevent another war. Out of that arose the Food and Agriculture Organisation. The F.A.O. was intended to put across that big idea. I was at Quebec and I urged the people there to try to get either my noble friend Lord Bruce of Melbourne or the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, who had done such a wonderful job in conducting the food policy of this country during the war, both of whom carried the guns, to put this idea across. I could not get them and, unwillingly and perhaps unwisely, I accepted the position of Director-General and tried to put across the same idea.

I put forward this proposition and sent it to all Governments, pointing out a great deal of what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said to-day. I suggested that the United Nations Agencies which had come into being by that time, the Economic and Social Council and the World Bank should co-operate to set up a world development authority beginning with food. That authority would provide the technical aid to countries in need of it, and the credits which would be given on a business scale and would be repayable when the resources of those countries had been developed. Also, they would stabilise world food prices within limits fair to producers and consumers, so that there would not be these violent fluctuations in world prices after a good harvest or a bad harvest. At Copenhagen, in 1946, they agreed to that in principle. I suggested that they should set up a commission of experts to work it out in greater detail. We were fortunate to get my noble friend Lord Bruce of Melbourne to be chairman of that commission. That met six months afterwards, but at that time the spirit of co-operation in the world was not so great as in 1946, and the best that could be got was a Food Council. F.A.O. has continued to do first-class work within the limits of its funds and authority. It was soon found that some of these things suggested to be done by the international authority had to be done. President Truman had to start his Point 4. The British had to start the Colombo Plan. Now we have the American Point 4, the Colombo Plan, the Bank giving grants and loans, and the United Nations Agencies, all acting independently. It would be a good thing if all these were co-ordinated under the one international authority and under the supervision of the United Nations.

I should like your Lordships to look at this position from the point of view of this country. This country is in a different position from that which it occupied in the nineteenth century. In the latter part of the nineteenth century there was an abundance of food in the world. We could easily get a market for our products. To-day we have lost our foreign investments, it is difficult to get markets for our products and it is going to be difficult to get the surplus food to import. The position with this country is acute and difficult. Where are we going to get our food in the next twenty years? Where are we going to get the markets for exports to pay for it? I should like to make a suggestion and that is that in this House where there are so many experts on finance, economics, agriculture and so on, it might be a good thing if an informal committee were set up to consider the facts which are available and what may be done in the interests of this country and of the world. If that Committee were set up, I am sure that they would soon reach one conclusion, and that is that this Commonwealth and Empire of ours, which contains within it food-deficit hungry countries and food-exporting countries, could well have a common Commonwealth food and industrial development plan, as was suggested yesterday by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Melbourne. That would help to get this country out of its difficulties.

I believe they might go further. In view of the whole world situation—and in this now small world we have to consider the whole world—they might consider whether it would not be worth while for this country again to put before the nations at one of their conferences this plan for getting the nations to co-operate to develop the resources of the world, beginning with food, for their mutual benefit. We might say that we are prepared to devote 5 per cent. Of what we are spending on armaments to an international fund under an international authority, providing all other countries are willing to do likewise.

Would other nations agree? We do not know. It has been said that Russia would not agree to co-operate. We do not know; we have not asked her. I know that in 1946, at the conference at Copenhagen where all the nations were gathered to see if they could co-operate in carrying through a food policy, my friend Mr. La Guardia, who was associated with me in the work of U.N.R.R.A., went to Moscow to discuss the matter with Mr. Stalin and his colleagues. He discussed it at great length, and then reported to me on his return that they said they would come into a scheme of this kind, provided that the United Kingdom and the United States of America came in, but that they had grave doubts as to whether those two countries would come in. We do not know whether Russia would have kept the promise made to Mr. La Guardia, but as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel has said, Russia is now willing to join these international organisations. It may be that Russia is as scared as we are of war and may be willing to come into a world pact like this.

It would be a wonderful thing if this country put forward a scheme of this kind, and said, "Instead of our destroying ourselves, let us co-operate to develop the resources of the earth to our mutual advantage." Of course, one might say that that is an ideal and, as such, is impracticable—that it is too novel and too new. Your Lordships are living in an entirely new world; you are living in the atomic age, and a nineteenth century political balance of power and nineteenth century economics, which are economies of scarcity, are totally different from the economics of to-day, which are economics of potential abundance.

My Lords, I believe that this country of ours has a prestige far greater than our citizens realise. I remember, in visiting Latin-American countries, Eastern European countries and the Eastern Asiatic countries, realising how these nations looked to this country after the war for leadership. Our prestige has not been entirely lost, and it might be that if this country were to take a lead, we could yet gain the moral, economic and political leadership of the world. It might be that this country could offer moral leadership to induce the nations to come away from the abyss of war, and could thus lead towards a new and better world, free from the intolerable evils of war, unnecessary poverty, hunger and disease, which is the only alternative to war. My Lords, it might be that it is the destiny of this great country of ours, and of the great Commonwealth and Empire to which we belong, to render that great service to humanity, and to shape the whole course of history.

4.33 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I have a certain hesitation in intervening in this debate, after the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, in his most interesting speech, has given a list of the experts who are to take part in the debate; and I feel all the more hesitation in following the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr. He is, I think, the acknowledged expert on this problem, and has done probably more than anyone else, both through his writings and his speeches, to bring the urgency and importance of this matter before the people of this country. Yet this is not a question which concerns experts alone; it concerns us all. And I am speaking because I feel that it is difficult to exaggerate the gravity of this problem. It is easy for us to realise the danger either of the use of nuclear weapons or of the advance of aggressive Communism, but it is much more difficult for people generally to realise the slow and stealthy, but steady, approach of hunger; and I believe that unless there is some change, or remedies are adopted, by the end of this century we shall find this by far the most difficult of all the the problems with which this perplexed world has to deal.

There are three fundamental and undeniable facts which we must keep in mind in approaching this subject—facts which have been already brought out in this debate. The first is that at the present time the majority of people in the world are under-nourished, many of them near starvation. That is especially so in the undeveloped countries, where it is said that something like four out of live people are under-nourished and from time to time a famine carries off tens of thousands. In visiting hospitals in the tropics from time to time, and asking the medical staff there, "What are the chief illnesses from which your patients suffer?" I have been struck that so often the answer has been: "With the exception of malaria there is no particular tropical illness which causes us trouble, but all the ordinary illnesses which you have at home are intensified and made much more serious through the malnutrition of the people." That is an undoubted fact.

The second fact is one which has been dwelt on to some extent—namely, the great increase in population. Like every one else, I have heard of this time after time without its making a great and vivid impression upon me—that is, until a few months ago, when I was in the West Indies. There, in those islands, and in the two Colonies on the continent, one can find nearly all the world problems on a small scale. The population in the West Indies and in the two Colonies has increased during the last thirty years by 61 per cent. British Guiana is an excellent example of the way in which population has been increasing. Until quite recently, a large number of people died year by year through malaria. Then it was discovered—I think largely through the agency of an Italian doctor—that it was a waste of time spraying the vast marshes in the hope of destroying the mosquitoes; instead, the attack was concentrated on the houses of the people where the mosquitoes made their poisonous bite. That policy has been adopted, with the result that malaria has been almost completely eradicated from British Guiana. But there has followed another result. The infant mortality has decreased from 250 per thousand to 67 per thousand in the year, and the birth rate has also gone up. The population of British Guiana is now 437,000. The Indian population there is increasing by 5 per cent. a year, and the Negro African population by 3 per cent. This means that, by the end of this century, the population in that Colony alone, where already there is a great deal of unemployment and a great deal of malnutrition, will be well over one million.

Take Barbados, a small island which has been intensively cultivated for a long time. Barbados has a population of 1,300 to the square mile. Thirty years ago the increase of population there was 300 a year: now it is 3,800 a year. When I went from these Colonies, under the British flag, to Puerto Rica, everything seemed to be on a scale of great luxury and prosperity—there were large cars in the streets and luxury goods in all the shops. The Americans have done wonders there, as we have done in our Colonies, in improving the health of the people. And here again the birth rate has gone up. I have not accurate figures but I am told that year after year thousands of people have to go from Puerto Rica to New York seeking work. At this moment there is living in New York a population of 500,000 Puerto Ricans who have had to go away from their own island because that island is over-populated; and the population there is still increasing. What we find in a comparatively small area in the West Indies and in the two Colonies is found throughout the whole of the world, with the exception of a few of the more prosperous and educated countries. Almost everywhere we find that the birth rate is increasing, and population is steadily going up. Figures have already been given, and I do not want to repeat them, but I venture to quote one sentence which I think sums up the situation clearly. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, quoted from that most interesting, book by Mr. Ritchie Calder, and Mr. Calder writing about increase of population says: What really is happening is that the world has a Cup-Tie crowd of over 60,000 people added to it every day—but they do not brine their ration books with them. The third undeniable fact is that, although in various parts of the world new land has been brought under cultivation—I was greatly struck two or three years ago to notice how much land in Ceylon, for instance, had been brought under cultivation since the war—as the noble Lord who has just spoken pointed out, there is such a thing as soil erosion, and in America, year by year, dust bowls are taking heavy toll over fields, which should be producing rich crops. Not everywhere are we valuing and taking care of the land; in many cases there is great loss of land which should be used for purposes of cultivation. What are the remedies? It is easy enough to describe a difficult position, but it is much harder to suggest any remedies. Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor mentioned two or three possible remedies. He referred to birth limitation and said that this was a subject from which we ought not to shrink. I entirely agree that that is a matter which must be discussed fully and considered carefully. But the urgent question is how to save these people from starvation. It is almost impossible to go to hungry people and talk to them about the importance of parental responsibility. We must take first things first. I discussed this matter with a number of people in the West Indies. I found that they are all of the same opinion: they believe that the immediate need is to try to raise the standard of living—which, indeed, we are trying to raise—and, when the standard of living is raised higher, people will be much more ready to try to reach a higher standard in their own lives and there will be a greater appreciation of the necessity of parental responsibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, asked: Would Communism solve the problem? I doubt whether Communism is really solving this problem in Russia at the present time. The reports we have are certainly contradictory, but recently there seem to have been some indications that they are not raising as much food in Russia as they hoped they were going to do. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, even if Communism could solve the problem on the material side, "man does not live by bread alone"; and man's material needs might possibly be met with the loss of all that spiritual and highest in his nature as the result of an iron-clad system of Communism being forced upon him. I think that the noble Viscount who introduced this matter, and those who have supported him were right in saying that we must try to bring more land under cultivation. Above all, we must try to do more on the lines of the Colombo Plan in assisting nations which are undeveloped. We must try to send them more technicians; we must try to send them more machinery; and we must do what we can to educate them in the modern methods of agriculture. We must supply them, very often, with the chemicals which are required. If we are to do this it means that the more prosperous countries are called upon to sacrifice, and a moral problem at once arises, for if the community of the world really means anything—and to a Christian it must mean a great deal—we must be prepared to make these sacrifices to help those nations whose material and spiritual condition is far worse than our own.

Nor must we—and I refer to this in a sentence—be thinking only of improving methods and producing more food overseas. There is still much to be done in our own country. Great things have been done, but we must help all those who are working for the production of food to feel that they are engaged in the most honourable and the most essential of all our industries. And we must not only consider those who are working on the farms and producing food on a large scale; we must do our utmost to encourage the little man, in his allotment and his back garden, to produce as much food as possible; we must help him to feel that he is taking part in a great campaign to save the world from starvation. Already much has been done in that way in our own country, but there is much more that ought to be done. I believe that the successful issue of this whole problem of food and population will decide whether, in the years to come, this world is to shrink into a condition of destitution and semi-starvation, or whether its people are to go forward with prosperity and hope into the future.

4.58 p.m.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

My Lords, it has struck me, listening to this debate, that the majority of noble Lords who have spoken—and especially, if I may say so, the most reverend Primate and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr—have proceeded on the assumption that nothing is being done to-day to help to solve this problem, serious as it is. That is not the case. Lord Boyd-Orr said that another committee ought to be set up in this country to give a lead to the world. He surely knows that his own old organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, stationed at Rome, has been extremely active over the last few years in trying to get all the Governments of the world outside the Iron Curtain to co-operate in formulating plans precisely to deal with the question of increasing food production. Some of their efforts, it would seem, have not been as successful as they might have been. But many Governments have replied in considerable detail showing what they propose to do, and giving detailed plans for production as far ahead as 1956–57. That, surely, is the most direct way of dealing with this problem.

I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who introduced this debate so interestingly, that it is exceedingly difficult to get reliable statistics and figures. It is difficult enough even in the more civilised countries; for the more backward countries, as the latest Report from the Food and Agriculture Organisation at Rome so wisely points out, these statistics are little more than informed guesses, although I suppose that informed guesses are better than nothing at all. Among the innumerable documents through which we have all had to read in preparation for this debate, I have been looking at the latest Report of the Food and Agriculture Organisation at Rome, which points out that, taking the world as a whole—that is, outside the Iron Curtain, of course; and practically everything that is said must be confined to outside the Iron Curtain, because we do not know what is going on behind the Iron Curtain—the actual production of food in the last four years has outstripped the increase in the population during that period. What is interesting, and what the Report brings out, is the extreme disparity between the results in different countries. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, quoted from some figures issued by P.E.P., which I hope are correct, because I intend to quote them.

LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE

They are nearly all figures from different Agencies of the United Nations.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

Perhaps the noble Lord will not mind my saying that they are frightfully drearily set out. It has been my misfortune, over a very long career, to have to read many documents, but I have seldom read any document worse presented or written in a more turgid form, and it was only out of a sense of duty to your Lordships, as I was intending to speak, that I went beyond the second page. I would venture to ask whoever is responsible for its presentation to do his utmost to couch future reports in terms more like those of our Prime Minister.

The passage referring to India is particularly interesting because I was able to compare it with what I found last year in the United States. The United States and Oceania are quoted in the Report of the Food and Agriculture Organisation as having had a low increase of food production compared with Europe and the Middle East. Even so, the figures are fairly striking. I take, for instance, milk and cows. There has been a quite appreciable improvement in the management and productivity of the dairy herds of the United States. Looking forward to their probable population in 1975, the Department of Agriculture told me that, assuming a reasonable continuance of improvement in management and yield, no additional cows will be required in the United States to provide milk and milk products for the whole population anticipated in 1975. That tends to show the enormous improvement in production which has taken place; and, so far as one can tell, there will be no food problem for the inhabitants of the United States for at least the next twenty years. The same thing is largely true of Canada. When speaking in the debate last week, I ventured to mention that the net increase of population in Canada, quite apart from immigration, is over twice that of India.

LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE

I do not think that figure is correct.

VISCOUNT HUDSON

I think the figure is 28 per thousand for Canada and 13 per thousand for India. Those are the figures I was given in New York last year, the figure for America being 18 per thousand. America is increasing its existing population faster per thousand than India.

This Report brings out and supports what the noble Lord, Lord MacDonald of Gwaenysgor, said, that no increase of food production in India can conceivably keep pace with the anticipated increase in population. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, interrupted to say that last year in India the increase of food production—of cereals I think—was 5 million tons; and he said that was a very notable increase. This Report, on the authority of the Indian Government, says that the maximum conceivable increase of food production is only 25 million tons for an indefinite period ahead. That is the maximum they can possibly hope for. Five million tons represents one-fifth of that and puts in perspective what has actually been done, compared with the maximum that could conceivably be done.

The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said in his speech that he relied very largely on the increase of irrigation. Anyone who reads the Report of F.A.O. from Rome will, I am sure, be as disappointed as I was to see the very minute contribution that, on the most lavish estimates, increased irrigation can make toward solving the problem of food shortage. In India for example, the additional irrigation of 40 million acres of land—which by itself is quite an item: the maximum that the Indian Government think is possible over the next twenty years—will produce an increase of only 8 million tons. That shows the minute contribution irrigation can make. I will not bother your Lordships with the details, but anyone who cares to read the Report will find the figures reproduced.

On the agricultural side, once it is possible to limit a population, and therefore have some sort of target for which to try to get the additional food produced, the real hope is to improve the skill and the standard of farming of the individual farmer, especially in the backward countries. In another passage this Report suggests that over half the world's population of underfed people are, in fact, subsistence farmers themselves. It points out that if only the productivity of those subsistence farmers could be improved it would enable them to improve their standard of living quite materially, without (and this is really the important point) increasing food production to such an extent as to run the risk of affecting world prices or producing burdensome surpluses. The possibility of producing burdensome surpluses is, incidentally, one of the real dangers and one of the possible drawbacks to providing adequate food for the world. It sounds paradoxical, but above all, what we do not want to do is to return to the condition of affairs in the 'twenties and' thirties, when in some areas there were enormous surpluses of food which could not be disposed of while in other areas people were dying of starvation. That incidentally, will be one of the serious problems which will face the world in trying to co-ordinate these two things. There are people, of course, who say that burdensome surpluses are bound to arise if the productivity of agriculture is improved. I do not agree, because I think that one of the real hopes for this country, for the United States and for the world, and one of the ways of dealing with this problem, is an increased productivity of agriculture while at the same time reducing costs. I believe that that can be achieved by improved methods, improved fertilisers, improved cultivation, and so on. I see no reason why there should be a crisis if at the same time as increasing productivity we reduce costs.

There is one other thing which comes out clearly from this Report. It is contained in one of the last sentences in the introduction: But the main contributions which agriculture itself can make to an expanding market will be gradually to raise productivity and reduce costs of production, so that in this way, too, prices may be lowered without lowering real farm incomes. This suggestion in no way conflicts with the widely adopted policy of price supports, … But in the last resort it remains true of agriculture, as of the whole economy, that it is the level of productivity which determines the real level of income"— this passage I particularly commend to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the benefit of his Department— and price supports and other instruments of agricultural policy should therefore be operated so as to increase rather than diminish incentives to greater efficiency. The final quotation I should like to make on this problem is from the Report: The basic improvement in food supply must come from people's own efforts, and improvement in their own production. It depends on the efforts made by their own producers; they must not rely on the world's coming to their assistance with the microscopic amounts of surplus food which would be available if we tried to divide our existing surpluses among all the hungry peoples of the world. I think that is the message which should go out from this debate. We, the more prosperous, the more intelligent and more civilised nations would help agriculturally in every way possible by giving scientific advice and making capital improvements available, but it finally depends on the people of the countries concerned.

If I may delay your Lordships for a further moment, I should like to give the House, from my own experience and knowledge of one of our own federated areas—namely, the Central African Federation—an example of the sort of thing that could be done. At the present moment the Federation has just come into operation and it looks like being a great success politically. Industrially and economically, I am not so sure. In Southern Rhodesia, at the present time the cost of living is very high. It is higher than in the neighbouring Union of South Africa and it is steadily rising. I am very much afraid that it is not possible for two countries having the same sort of outlook, and producing very much the same sort of commodities, with the exception of gold—and even that is common to them both—to live permanently together, separated by a narrow political boundary with two standards of living. One of the most important things for the Central African Federation is to see whether the cost of living cannot be brought down—in other words, whether food production cannot be increased and, at the same time, costs substantially reduced.

At the present moment mealies, which are a standard part of the natives' food, are subsidised heavily by the Government to offset what are alleged to be the high costs of production. In my view, these high costs are really due to the very low standards of yield. In the area of Southern Rhodesia which I happen to know, the average yield of mealies among 4,000 European farmers living in that district is two bags of 200 lb. each an acre. No wonder they require a subsidy to be able to continue farming on that scale! At one local experimental station they have shown that the sand veldt, which is the soil over the whole of the area, and is the soil of 90 per cent. Of Southern Rhodesia, can, if properly fertilised, produce very large yields. I know of farmers who have experimented this year with varying applications of nitrogenous fertilisers up to approximately 700 lb. an acre and who are getting yields of fifteen to twenty bags—no less than seven to ten times the average level of production of the area. Your Lordships do not need me to explain what effect there would be in the cost of production and therefore on the cost of mealies, if we could get the average production over the whole of the lands at present being farmed up from two to twenty bags an acre. Frankly, one of the main reasons why it is not being done is not only the lack of nitrogenous fertilisers but their appalling cost, which is no less than £30 a ton, compared with the £15 or, with the subsidy, £10 for British farmers. Therefore, apart from the fact that they cannot get them, with the best will in the world, farmers cannot afford fertilisers at present.

The same is true of meat. It would be possible to produce in Southern Rhodesia meat of first-class quality, two-year old animals, instead of the present five or seven-and-a-half-year olds, which is the average age of slaughter cattle in Southern Rhodesia, because they cannot be fed properly. If we could reduce the price of fat cattle by feeding them with cheaper mealies we could bring down the price of meat very materially. Meat cannot be sent to this country simply because the price of reasonably good meat in Rhodesia is higher than in Argentina and Australia from where we are drawing supplies at present; but there is no conceivable reason why we could not develop a meat of really first-class quality that could be sent over here, chilled, to provide a supplement for the inadequate supplies that are at present coming and likely to come in the future from Argentina and other countries. Again, this is dependent entirely on the the supply of fertilisers.

The situation is not without hope. At Kafue, during certain seasons of the year, there is extra water available which is not required for the prospective development of the copper belt. If it were possible—and I am told that there is no inherent technical reason why it should not be possible—to establish a fertiliser factory as part of the hydro-electrical scheme to make nitrogen from the air, we should be able to distribute fertilisers in Southern Rhodesia, and in Northern Rhodesia for that matter, because both countries are involved, at a price approximating to £10 a ton. If fertilisers were available at £10 a ton, or even £12 or £13, they would be used not only by the white population but also, I can assure your Lordships, by the native population in the native area, because many of the natives are quite "sold" on the idea of higher production. A great deal of work has been done by the Southern Rhodesian Government, particularly by the Department of Native Affairs, to improve the natives' methods of agriculture, and there can be no doubt that the natives would take fully as much advantage of this as the white farmers would.

That is the situation in the Central African Federation. On a small scale this is what we in this country could do to-day to improve food production, not only for white people but for the whole native population of the Central African territories, without in any way interfering with the development of Kariba, the other big hydro-electric scheme. I suggest that this is one of the most urgent things we could do, and it could be done without any call on subsidies or on the taxpayers of this country, because I am told—I am not an expert, and I merely repeat what I have heard, on good authority—that the figure I have quoted of the price of fertilisers would represent a reasonable return on the capital to be employed.

Now take the other side under our control. Take Bechuanaland. The noble Lord, Lord Reith, was here. I thought he was going to speak, but I gather there is another meeting he has to attend. But if he had been here, he would no doubt have confessed to your Lordships what he thought about the expenditure of the Colonial Development Corporation in Bechuanaland, particularly in the case of the abattoir at Lobatsi. But Her Majesty's Government, quite apart from Colonial development, are toying with the idea of developing ranching in Bechuanaland itself, under the aegis of the Commonwealth Relations Department. It has been the subject of an interesting report of a mission to Bechuanaland to investigate the possibility of economic development in the Kalahari Desert. That report, written by eminent persons here, in Kenya and in South Africa, says that no further progress ought to be made until there has been a pilot scheme. I do not want to weary your Lordships by reading the report, but they instance a number of the natural difficulties that would have to be overcome before a pilot scheme could even be started. Judging from my experience of trying to ranch in Southern Rhodesia, the estimates of expenditure made beforehand rarely come out at more than 50 per cent. Of the ultimate cost. All that would fall on the British taxpayer. I venture to suggest earnestly to Her Majesty's Government that the scheme for trying to set up ranches in the Kalahari Desert should be abandoned.

I am told that there are political reasons why we ought to do something in Bechuanaland. By all means let us spend a little money; but what I am afraid of is that the enthusiasts will get hold of it, and before we know where we are we shall be committed, as the Colonial Development Corporation were committed, to hundreds of thousands of pounds. Look, for a moment, at the contrast. By the expenditure of thousands of pounds from the taxpayers' pocket you might be able to produce something in Bechuanaland. Now look at Kafue. There you will be able to benefit not only ourselves but the whole of the natives of Central Africa and raise their standards of living. I suggest, as a side issue from this debate, that we should ask the Government to make sure that they carry on this Kafue project and abandon Kalahari.

5.13 p.m.

LORD BEVERIDGE

My Lords, I must begin, as I think all speakers do to-day, whether they say it openly or not, by expressing gratitude to my noble friend Lord Samuel for introducing this debate and thus bringing before us an immense human problem which does not come to our doors every day but which may affect, and almost certainly will affect, the lives of every one of us in this country, as elsewhere. It is the problem of stopping the hunger in the existing population of the world, and of feeding the additional mouths that are being added every day and year to the population of the world. The figures that I have before me—I will give their source in a moment—suggest that some five years ago the earth was contriving to provide enough to feed some 650 million of its population of 2,400 million, and giving the other 1,800 million, or nearly that figure, not enough to live on. At the same time, while there were these 650 million fed and the 1,800 million not fed, every year something like 30 million fresh mouths were being added to the population of the world.

These figures I take from a document which has already been referred to by the last speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson. It is the broadsheet issued by Political and Economic Planning. I am glad that the Chairman of that Organisation has just come back to his seat, because I should like to say that, so far from finding this document a turgid or useless document, I find it one of the easiest that I have had to read for a long time; so easy that I read it all the way in the train from Oxford this morning, instead of indulging in my customary exercise of doing The Times crossword puzzle. It is so well written at every point, so suggestive, so stimulating of thought and anxiety, that I should like to see the document circulated as a White Paper, not only to this House but to everyone in the country, because the facts in it affect the people in this country so much. I shall come to that point before I have finished.

I agree with all that has been said about its being the natural responsibility of the greater and more prosperous nations as part of their common humanity, to concern themselves with this problem of under-feeding in the whole world, which is so great now and is going to be still greater in the future, and that they should do everything they can to develop the undeveloped countries. What I would ask is: Is that all with which we must concern ourselves? I suggest that there are two other aspects of this problem to which we ought to attend. Let me come back to the broadsheet of P.E.P., to which I have already referred. One of the striking facts in it is—I think there is no question about these population figures, although there is some question about the productivity figures of agriculture—that, on a quite likely forecast, as many people will be added to the total population of the world in a generation, between 1950 and 1980, as there existed in the whole world in 1900. In other words, in a generation something, like the whole population of the world will be doubled. That, of course, assumes a certain forecast about growth, but it is clearly a possible one, and it shows the nature of the problem facing those who wish to abolish hunger from the world.

This growth of population, as we have it and still more as we have it in prospect, in the words of the broadsheet, results effectively from death control, which means, not prolonging the lives of useless old people like myself and useful old people like my noble friend Lord Samuel, but cutting short premature death at birth, in infancy, in childhood and so on. That saving of lives through the developments of science has become one of the major factors in the world population problem. It has become that because of the great difficulty of keeping pace with the resulting growth of population by the production of food. Now I am not going to argue whether all the figures in this pamphlet are right—nobody would suggest they are. I am not going to argue that we may not find greater possibilities of developing agricultural production than are suggested in this pamphlet. What I want to suggest is that if we have managed to escape getting more hunger up to the time when we have developed all the undeveloped countries fully, and if with death control the population of the world goes on increasing and increasing, have we done more than merely postpone the date at which we will have to consider the other aspect of the matter?

Is it not really clear that death control automatically requires in some form or other—I am not discussing the form— birth control? Can you go on keeping alive everybody who is born in the world and still make sure that the earth will be able to feed them? Does not the issue of limiting births arise in one way or another? I wish to suggest that there is no real harm in that. We know that in this country our birth rate fell rapidly some eighty years ago. That has had an inconvenient consequence for the present in making the burden of pensions very great in this country, but when we old people who were born nearly eighty years ago are dead, then, I think Britain will return to healthy economic conditions and be able to pension its old people well. That problem will have gone. I suggest that on the whole this country is much happier because it is moving towards a stationary population than if it had endeavoured, in this limited area, to pile up more and more people. I think it would have found a growing difficulty in sending out masses of those people to occupy other areas in the world, because other areas are beginning to have their own views about what they call "Imperialism." That is my first practical conclusion from the facts about world population and possible agricultural production as we have them: that if you go on saving lives indefinitely by death control, you cannot really escape looking at the problem and the possibilities of birth control. In that I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.

I come to my second practical conclusion. I suggest that this growing overpopulation of the world and the pressure upon the means of producing food is going to put this country, above all other countries, in a particular difficulty, because the more food is needed to be consumed in the countries which produce the food, the greater difficulty we are going to find in maintaining our imports and maintaining our population at its present standard. I suggest that soon we in this country are going to find that we are not among the more favoured nations of the world but among those with a special difficulty, if ease of the importing of food diminishes, as it is practically bound to diminish as world population increases. What we have to realise in this country is that probably there is not an easy life ahead of us. That does not mean that we should not concern ourselves with the problem of the undeveloped countries while we still have a relatively high standard of living. I hope we shall. Indeed, I use this argument about our dependence upon imports to suggest that, though this country is not ultimately going to be one of the most favoured countries in the world with an easy standard of living, it is naturally a country which is internationally minded and which realises the problems of the world and its position in the world.

As I listened to this debate, and as I read what I could about the problem which has been raised, I felt that science, by enabling us to prevent early deaths, has presented the world with a problem of difficulty comparable to that which the scientists have presented to us by showing us how to make fission bombs and fusion bombs. Unfortunately, there is a curious similarity between, the two problems. One similarity is, I fear, that we know that we in Britain are likely to be about the first people to suffer from the use of nuclear weapons. We above all shall suffer from them if a world war breaks out; and we in Britain are likely to suffer also through the difficulty of getting imports, owing to the pressure of population in the world and the lack of means of subsistence. An other similarity is that apparently saving lives has become almost as easy in practice as making hydrogen bombs, when you know how to do it. There is a striking phrase in this "turgid" document from which I have already quoted, that one or two skilled people with little persistence can save lives by the thousand if they know how to do it. Finally there is this similarity. One asks: Is there any defence to the hydrogen bomb? Is there any defence to over-population and starvation brought about by keeping alive everybody who is born in the world? I suggest that is the problem we have to face, and that is why I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Samuel for raising this question. He has made me think. I hope he has made many of us in this Chamber think, and I hope that many who read what he has said and what others have said will be ready to think upon this—one of the fundamental problems of humanity at the present time and in the coming generation.

5.30 p.m.

LORD RENNELL

My Lords, the questions raised and outlined in the document to which the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has referred, and which I think many of your Lordships have probably read by now, involve figures that are so astronomical, and problems that are so large, that it is quite beyond my capacity or intellectual resources to comment on them. That the problem is there is obvious, but I do not think it is a problem that lends itself practically to a discussion which leads to one conclusion as being the answer to the whole problem, whether that conclusion be the increase of the supply of food or the decrease or limitation of the population. I believe that, as in so many problems that appear to be insuperable in the world, the only way in which to attack them is to attack them piecemeal, to do a little bit at a time. I believe there is more practical value in trying to get some more food than in wasting a very long time in wondering how we are going to get all the food we, need.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, I am glad to say, has raised the question of Africa and has shown a possibility of increasing the food production in certain parts of Africa, not by the modest 2 per cent. Which is referred to in the document in question but by a very large percentage, if only certain comparatively simple and, in the perspective of the whole problem, comparatively cheap investments are made. I believe that that is true not only of Africa but of certain other areas. In particular, I find it very difficult to agree with the writers of that document that the area which may be brought under cultivation to produce more crops is, in fact, as limited as is suggested in that broadsheet. The limitations in most of the areas which I believe still to be cultivable are, moreover, limitations which can be overcome piecemeal and do not require to be overcome by the expenditure of those immense and astronomical sums to which the noble Viscount in his speech referred—in one instance, the dam in Pakistan. The area which I have in mind where I believe a vast extension of food production can be achieved at relatively low cost (and, when I say "relatively low cost," in figures of any size "relative" involves a great deal of money, though not astronomical units of money such as £150 million or £200 million at a time) is Australia.

Australian development at the present moment on the agricultural side, prosperous as it may be, is still in a very primitive state. The cultivated part of the country as a whole is still at the stage of extensive farming. It is only in comparatively recent years that any attempt has been made there to turn from extensive to intensive farming. Where that has been done, production has increased out of all belief. That it has not been done on a larger scale is due to two perfectly simple factors: one is the lack of population, the lack of labour to do what ought to be done; and the second is the lack of money. The transition of agriculture from extensive to intensive farming where the climate allows of it—as, happily, in a great part of Australia the climate does allow of it—does not necessarily involve the expenditure of enormous sums of money on single public works. It is always notoriously difficult to finance such works, which require years of study before investments can be made, and the problem of raising large sums of money is intensified by the fact that you rarely get full production out of the project until towards the end of the time when all the money that has to be spent is spent. The essential problem in Australia, as in so many other countries, including Africa, is conservation of soil, conservation of water and the improvement of soil, on the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, in certain parts of Africa.

In point of fact, the work that has been done on soil improvement in Australia is probably as brilliant as has been done in any part of the world. It has already shown the practical results of being able to turn what were sub-desert or scrub areas into cultivated land, at a cost which is infinitesimal compared even with a small public works dam. That is not a theoretical conception; it is a practical one which is being put into operation on a commercial scale by commercial people at the present time. The conversion of extensive farming to intensive farming is a transition of small units from one type of agriculture to another type of agriculture. The total amount to be spent on a small unit is much easier to find than the large amount needed if you take a whole area and do it by planning or by centralised control by the Government.

I may remind your Lordships that in Australia. Since the war, the population of 7½ million has increased by over 1½ million—I will come back to that point in a minute—which has an effect on the question of the total production of food. The population is beginning to grow there, and as a result of the increase in population in Australia, which unfortunately has done nothing, or virtually nothing, to diminish the population anywhere else, labour is becoming available to effect this transition provided that the money can be found. As I believe that the money can be found on a small scale more readily than on a large scale, I suggest that the first elementary policy in the stimulation of agricultural production is to make that money available to individuals for that conversion, which means the breaking up of large estates and, perhaps, the breaking up of stations and farms into smaller holdings, as is taking place at the moment in South-West Australia.

The gain in productivity in the process is immense, and certainly year after year infinitely greater than the average of 2 per cent. referred to in that broadsheet. The amount of land which can be still brought in by water conservation is immense, if not unlimited, and it is possible that there may be as much more land to be brought in by water conservation in the continent as has already been brought in under conservation. That, in turn, requires money to be spent, though not necessarily on large public works and large dams. It requires, in the first place, the conservation of water locally in dams and barrages, and by the use of wells. If half the money that has been spent on one of the larger public works schemes, which will no doubt benefit future generations, had been put down and made available for individuals to develop their own particular areas, the productivity of those areas to-day would be as great as that of the areas which will come in under cultivation when the public works now in progress have been completed.

That involves the provision of some money. Certainly, above all, it involves the diversion of money to a particular purpose—in other words, a priority of investment for agriculture in Australia and in certain other countries, such as South Africa, which may be in the same state of development, rather than the diversion of money to the creation of secondary industries. We have in this country a considerable responsibility. I cordially agree both with what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said and with what the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has said, that we have a responsibility here for future generations to seek to provide something against the catastrophic day when it does not appear likely that there will be enough food to go round. If we have that responsibility, equally we must have the responsibility of diverting certain moneys, as they are available in this country, to the under-developed countries towards the production of food, rather than towards the creation of secondary industries. It equally follows that, if there are areas—and I believe that South Africa and Australia are two such areas—we should give priority, with the moneys which are available, to those areas. I do not want to go into the argument of how much money is available—we had that yesterday—but such moneys as are available and, indeed, as are in this country must be made available in order of priority.

I believe that in these under-developed countries the first priority is the production of increased food supplies, beginning in a small way and not, as I had again to say yesterday, and as I believe other speakers have also said both yesterday and to-day, by waiting until a grandiose scheme can be worked out. We should begin in a small way, by having small estates and making two blades of grass grow on ten acres, instead of waiting to build a dam which is going to irrigate 100,000 acres. This is the production which will show the investor that it is worth doing. It will make it very much easier for the client, the suppliant, who wants the money to do it, to get it in small "dollops," if he can show that, having got one "dollop," he has done this, and therefore is entitled to ask for a second. As I say, this problem of future world supplies can he tackled only piecemeal. I do not believe that there is a limit as low as has been set in these various studies that have been made about the possible annual increase in food production in the world. The production figures which have been quoted in this particular broadsheet are increased production figures based on what is literally a few years' experience.

If your Lordships will allow me one small digression, may I draw attention to the fact that certain known plots of land in this country have been under arable cultivation for 1,000 years, and they are still producing, and up to 1900 were producing, increasing yields every year. It is only in the last fifty years, roughly speaking, that so-called artificial fertilizers, phosphates and other things have been used; but hitherto good husbandry had been producing these yields. The quantity of work put in during that period allowed an increase in yields to take place. Within the last fifty years, by new discoveries, by intensive work on soils, seed selection and new crops, we have achieved a start ling increase in production, as has been the case in America, and in Canada, and latterly also, to some, extent, in Australia, notably in Southern Australia, with its wheat yields. What is quite obvious to me, from the figures that are quoted about the annual increase, is that this annual increase in food yields in the world is based on the experience of fifty years of modern discovery and of modern science; in fact it is probably based on the experience of about twenty-five years. Is that any reason to suppose that, having achieved that increase in twenty-five years, we shall achieve only the same rate of increase over the next 100 years? I do not believe that. As a result of new scientific discoveries, in the last five years in Australia we have been turning a desert that has never grown anything in the way of a crop, and has barely kept any animal alive, into a productive area that will both keep animals alive and produce crops. If that has been possible, it will go on being possible, and therefore the rate of increase of food production, even on existing land, let alone land which can be brought under cultivation, can be increased immensely and to a vastly higher figure than is suggested in the broadsheet.

5.45 p.m.

LORD SIMON OF WYTHENSHAWE

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for introducing this subject, which seems to me to be of the most desperate importance. As has been pointed out, I have been involved in the production of this apparently rather controversial broad sheet. In that connection I have been thinking hard about this subject for a good many months. I find it an exceedingly difficult subject, and a lot of hard thinking has left it a very difficult subject. But one thing has become quite clear in my mind: that with regard to the race between food production, on the one hand, and population, on the other, there is a fundamental difference between the developed areas of the world and the under-developed areas. By "under-developed" I do not mean people who are in any way inferior. From the point of view of morals, culture and religion, they may be superior to us, for all I know, but they have not gone through scientific revolutions: first of all, the revolution of industry and agriculture and public services—in other words, the revolution that leads to wealth; nor secondly, the medical revolution which leads to health. We in the West have been through those two revolutions. About half a billion people in the world have been through those two revolutions, but about one and a half billion people have hardly begun to enter into them.

I want to give your Lordships three very short quotations from the Food and Agriculture Organisation. I should like to pay a tribute to the United Nations Agencies, for without the statistics and information which they have provided it would be quite impossible to have an intelligent debate on these affairs. The first quotation comes from the Food Survey in 1952, which said: … not only has there been an appreciable fall in the average calorie supply of the world as a whole, but also the large gap between the better and worst fed nations has widened. The second quotation is one from the Director-General of F.A.O. in 1953: If allowance is made for quality, as well as calorie content, the average per caput diets of the Western countries are something like two or three times those of most under-developed regions. Those are the countries in which large numbers of people are starving and under-fed to-day. It is the West where production is good and where the improvements in food production have occurred in recent years. My third quotation concerns food production in South-East Asia, where the food production increased by 3 per cent, but the population by 24 per cent., so that the food production per head has decreased by 17 per cent. That is the hungriest part of the world, and the amount of food produced to-day per caput is 17 per cent. less than it was twenty years ago. There is no material for encouragement there.

I want to compare the present and prospective food situation in this country with that in India, which is perhaps the most representative and advantageous of the under-developed countries to consider. First of all, in this country we have about completed what is known as the "population cycle." We started 200 years ago with high birth rates and high death rates. We had a death rate of about 40 per 1,000. Out of every six children, half died before they reached the age of twenty, and the expectation of life was under thirty. That was our position 200 years ago. That is the position in nearly all the under-developed countries to-day. We went through the two revolutions I have mentioned: the industrial and the agricultural revolution, which multiplied our income, I think, by five or six times in that period, and the health revolution, which reduced the number of deaths from nearly 40 per thousand to about 12 per thousand—that is, by at least two-thirds.

We have reached the end of those two revolutions. All the Western countries have gone through very much the same sort of cycle. An interesting thing happened. After we had had 130 years of improving health and wealth, as education spread, as women became emancipated, parents began to control their families. The birth rate began to decline. In the last seventy years it has declined to about half what it was before that time, and children have ceased to die at the rate of half of those born before they reached the age of twenty. Now very few indeed die. So we have completed our cycle from high births and high deaths to low births and low deaths. The problem facing the world is to transfer the people of the under-developed countries from the state of high births and high deaths to that of low births and low deaths.

Asians certainly do not accept everything in the West as good. But I think every country accepts these two revolutions—the revolution in income and the revolution in health—as being desirable things which it is most anxious to achieve. One thing has always happened in every case, I think, in history: the birth rate has declined only after the death rate has declined by quite a substantial amount, after income has increased, and after leisure has become available. The result is that while the birth rate has remained high and the death rate has declined, there has been a very rapid increase in population. Our population in England and Wales in 200 years increased six times. In addition to that, over 10 million Britons emigrated to the empty lands of America, Canada and Australia, so the actual increase was at least eight times. That, again, is pretty typical of the West. The increase for the whole of Western Europe was about five times. And at the same time we managed steadily to raise the standard of living. The standard of living has been multiplied by five; the population by the same amount. Noble Lords have asked. "Why cannot the East do the same sort of thing?"

I want to take India as my example. My reasons for taking it are, first, that India published in 1952 a Five Year Plan, with a survey of all these problems, and, secondly, that just after that it brought out the census of 1951, from which my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor has read some extracts. The Registrar General, having given census figures, then went on boldly and imaginatively to make forecasts of the probable rate of increase of population in India, excluding Pakistan, over the next thirty years, and to estimate whether and how food could be produced to feed that population. His report, I think, shows great courage and great imagination—I will come back to it in a few minutes. India, as I say, is to-day just beginning her population cycle. Her birth rate has not yet gone down and her death rate has just begun to go down; in the last thirty years the reduction has been substantial. India is a very poor country—a great deal poorer than we were in I750. She has further to go to build up a stable economy. Furthermore, she is a very large country indeed. She has a population of 360 millions, which is fifty times the population we had when we began our population cycle. We, as I have said, multiplied our population by about eight. I leave it to noble Lords to calculate what would happen if India were to multiply her population by eight. It would mean, I should think, a population of about 2 billions. Obviously that cannot happen.

Again, we had plenty of space in our own country. They, according to their own reports, have very little space in their own country. We had the empty lands of America, Australia and Canada to emigrate to. They have no empty lands. All have been taken by the whites. Not only could we emigrate to those lands, but we have ever since bought food from those countries at prices which we could afford to pay. India has made a beginning with industrial development, but she has a far more difficult problem than we had; she has to compete against the leading Western industrial countries who have had a very long start. They started 100 years in advance of India, and their industries are much more efficient. So India has a much more difficult task than we had to produce goods and export them to enable her to buy food for import. These are major difficulties.

Another rather surprising disadvantage which faces India arises in this way. When we started death control 200 years ago medical and sanitary science was in its infancy. It took us nearly 200 years to get the death rate down from 40 per 1,000 to where it is now. But recent inventions like D.D.T. and penicillin have in the last few years produced remarkable results. It is now possible for a very small team to go into a small country and abolish malaria in a matter of a year or two. In fact, I think one noble Lord mentioned that that has been done in Ceylon. Birth rates in Ceylon have not begun to fall, but the death rate has fallen in the last few years right down to the Western level. This decrease in the death rate is due largely to the use of D.D.T. in the abolition of malaria. The result is, very naturally, that the population has increased, and it is increasing at the rate of about 2.7 per cent. per annum, which is almost double the maximum rate of increase in Britain. If that rate continues, it means that the population will double in thirty years, and will multiply by eight in 100 years That, clearly, would produce an impossible position.

If India applied these Western health measures as efficiently, she would have an increase, not of five million a year, as now, but of ten million a year. The improvement in the nation's health in one sense would be a very good thing, and everyone would wish to achieve it, but if it were brought about at such a pace India would not have time to adapt herself and get birth control going or industry satisfactorily developed. So that is another grievous disadvantage to India, as compared with our position 200 years ago. The people are very poor; they have an enormous population crowded on their land and no empty lands to which to emigrate. The expansion of industry is going, to be difficult. Their death rate is declining at a tremendous pace. The Registrar General reports that during the last thirty years in India the increase of food has been very slight, whereas the population has increased by 45 per cent. in thirty years. The amount of food consumed per head, so far from increasing, is actually declining. It is no doubt for those reasons that India in this Five Year Plan begins with the things that Five Year Plans usually deal with—increasing agricultural production, increasing industrial production, increase of power and all the things wanted to increase the nation's financial resources.

They then go on to health and population problems. One very novel—indeed, I think, unique—point is this. They have initiated a campaign to limit the increase of population and as early as possible to stabilise the population. I quote from the Plan: The recent increase in the population of India and the pressure exercised on the limited resources of the country have brought to the forefront the urgency of family planning and population control. … Population control can be achieved only by the reduction of the birth rate to the extent necessary to stabilise the population at a level consistent with the requirements of national economy. That is, I think, the first time in history that any Government have set that aim before them, being driven to it by actual facts. I might also quote one or two words from a speech by a leading industrialist, the chairman of the great Tata iron and steel company. He said: Our population is increasing at the rate of nearly five million a year. Even if we sought only to maintain the existing population on its present low standard, we would have to find work each year for an additional two and a half million men and women. As the land is already overburdened with manpower, employment would have to be found for them outside agriculture, that is, in industry and services … the financial and other requirements would be well beyond our present means. He went on to say that if the population were stabilised increased industrialisation would certainly help in improving the living standards of the people. That is also the view of the Indian Government.

I should now like to say a word concerning the Registrar General's Report on the census of 1951, which has been referred to by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who has quoted from a broadsheet; I will not quote any more. The Registrar General estimates that the population of 360 million will, by 1981, be 520 million—an increase in thirty years exactly equal to the present population of the United States of America. He goes on to say that they cannot feed that population, even at the present standards. He examines all possible ways, with, naturally, all Government agricultural experts behind him—such ways as extra irrigation, extra land brought under cultivation, better farming methods, better machinery and so on—and he comes to the conclusion that it is not possible within thirty years to increase food production by more than just sufficient to feed 450 million people at about the present level. That is a very pessimistic conclusion, and so far as I can learn it has not been seriously criticised in India. It is the authoritative estimate of India. Mr. Nehru, as has been pointed out, has already said that if the population of India to-day were half what it is the standard of living would be a great deal better.

I have tried to make clear, as shortly as I can, the almost insuperable difficulties India is facing to-day. And India is only typical of the other billion and a half people in the under-developed countries. It is the most vocal, and is probably more advanced than any of the others, but it recognises these difficulties as almost insuperable. Naturally, we have a very special responsibility towards the peoples of India, and we in this country will do all we can to help them. I hope that when replying the noble Earl will give us some information other than on the question of what grants we are giving to all these different underdeveloped countries.

May I say just one word by the way about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who urged that priority should be given to Australia, which is not far from an under-developed country in the sense in which I have been using the expression? They have gone through both these revolutions; they are one of the rich countries of the world. The object of this Motion is that help should be given, as far as possible, to the under-developed three-fifths of the world's population, those who have not gone through the revolution, who are poor, but who must have help. I suggest that the one thing on which we are a long way ahead of the East is in our scientific development, our knowledge of science and of technology. That knowledge is available, and we make it available as much as we possibly can through technical assistance to all countries who ask for it, through the Colombo Plan and otherwise. But I should like to know whether the noble Earl can tell us how far in our research we, in fact, pay, special attention first of all to the needs of, shall I say, tropical countries, in developing different aspects of industry and in regard to agriculture. I know that some agricultural colleges, such as at Trinidad, specialise in that subject. Are we doing all we can in that direction?

Turning to the question of birth control, I think we in this country have managed to match our birth control with our death control; we have reached a fairly stable level. They have not been able to do so yet in any Eastern country. There, with an enormous population of 500 million, mainly illiterate, it is difficult to get the women to understand how to control and to plan their parenthood, and I should be particularly grateful if we could help in that regard. With a country like India that is perhaps the most difficult of the three problems they have to consider. They have to consider industrial development, death control and birth control, and birth control is the most difficult of the three. I hope that in replying the noble Earl will give us some indication whether, through the Medical Research Council or in any other way, we are doing anything, or can do anything, to help them in that direction.

6.4 p.m.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

My Lords, I feel some difficulty in speaking to-night, because I find myself so much in disagreement with a large number of those who have already spoken. It seems to me extremely difficult to know what is the problem in detail without knowing the detail. I have myself traveled; I lived in Africa for three years in my younger days; I visited the whole of what used to be the West African Colonies immediately before the war and took part in a research survey of those areas; I have been to India and to other countries in the East and seen many of the areas where different work is going on, latterly largely in connection with military operations. That has meant that I have seen a great deal of the life of the countries and of the different kinds of people who live in them. They are astonishingly different. They have different views of life, different customs, different habits, and different manners. Take the many races in Africa alone: they differ tremendously, the one from the other. Races and tribes living quite close to each other have different habits. How are we to get the information we require with regard to what food they are to have, and how are we to get them to take the adequate food if it can be provided? I know that in Basutoland, for instance, a mile or so from which I once lived for a considerable time, there are great differences in the kinds of food they eat from the food people outside eat. How are we to get the right kind of food to these people?

I go back in my experience to a food experiment which I carried out in London a long time ago, in the year 1908. I mention it because it reinforces what I am saying with regard to the difficulty of understanding what is going on. At that time the London County Council did not believe that schoolchildren in London were underfed, and it had to be proved by an experiment. I conducted the experiment, and I received a lot of support from all kinds of well-intentioned people, people in the City and elsewhere. The money was obtained all right, and we carried out the experiment. It was an absolute eye-opener to the London County Council as to what was happening in their own schools in London, and it was an eye-opener to many people in London. In fact, it started a new system of school feeding for children in London. But we did not know what the situation was until after we had made medical inspections in a large number of schools and started this experimental restaurant—as one might call it—for children, where they were given a mid-day meal. We did not know what would be the effect on them or whether they really required the food. It was, in fact, in the beginning, denied by the authorities, by the London County Council, that the children required any food at all, but finally they agreed on a report presented by myself to the Council in 1908 that it was necessary that a school meals system should be set up on the lines laid down in the report. It was set up, and has been going on since that time. It was needed.

I believe that we require very much greater detail in a survey of world conditions before we can come to conclusions about what is required. I have already mentioned Basutoland, but take the Africans in the Rhodesias and in the Congo, both of which I have visited. I believe that a survey in detail is required of them. People do not always act quite rationally; they do not take food because it has certain proteins, carbo-hydrates, and other nutritious substances; they take food for all kinds of reasons. I believe it is necessary to have much more knowledge than we have. I do not suggest for a moment that we should desist from going on with research into how we are to feed the world, but I do think we should inform ourselves in much greater detail as to what kind of food is required by the world, and especially by various primitive races, some of which I have mentioned.

We must have a much more detailed survey of the world population, because the differences are so many, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, said, we must face up to the necessity of a control of the birth rate. We cannot possibly deal with an expanding population in this world and not face up to the problem of birth control. There must be some form of birth control, and that will by no means be easy to achieve, because it will be very difficult indeed to persuade a great many of the primitive peoples to use any form of birth control.

There is at least one part of India on which I have a detailed report, showing that it was impossible to get a doctor to stay in certain places. There was no other person of intelligence and education there to talk to him and he was completely isolated. We have to get down to more detail before we can draw up a policy which is applicable to all parts of the world and we must remember that we are only at the beginning of this problem and not at the end of it. I hope that we shall get this information. I hope, too, that we shall arrange some means of survey, particularly under the guidance of doctors and those trained in social welfare, which will deal with individual tribes, individual countries and individual races, so that we shall get a detailed picture and not a generalised one which may be right so far as one corner of the picture is concerned but entirely wrong so far as concerns another.

6.10 p.m.

VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE

My Lords, having inflicted a rather long speech on your Lordships yesterday, I apologise for speaking again to-day, but I have been associated with this problem somewhat intimately from its commencement and I feel there are a few words I should say. However, I will endeavour to be brief. The inception of the idea behind the Motion before the House today took place in 1935 in the League of Nations. We have to bear in mind that it was completely economic and had no humanitarian background at all at that stage. The world was in a very serious state in 1935 and the idea was conceived that if something could be done to improve the standards of the agricultural population—because at that time we were at the height of the agricultural slump—we should be helping to solve the fundamental problem of our economic difficulties. The idea had application not only to the backward countries, but also to the 60 per cent. of the world's employed population engaged in agriculture. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was associated with me in those days—I have some suspicion about whether it was with the complete approval of his Government, but personally he was quite invaluable.

This idea was conceived by Australia. I hawked it to every Government I could think of, because I thought it was the sort of idea that ought to be produced by a great Power. I was embarrassed by the fact that, strange as it seems to-day, in those days Australia had large surpluses of agricultural products which we wanted to sell to the world, and I thought that if I produced this idea, I should be accused of putting forward a rather cunning device to get rid of our wretched surplus produce. Nobody would touch it. The British Government would not touch it. France and Italy would not touch it. So, greatly daring, Australia launched this adventure. Perhaps the noble Earl will remember that, having got it on the Motion Paper, I was so nervous about it that I talked for the best part of the first morning, because we did not want it to fizzle out immediately. But it went much better than we expected.

The idea was taken up, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, has told us, by twenty-two nations who were associated in the body over which. Lord Astor presided. So many years have gone since then that I do not think it would be indiscreet to reveal—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Astor, would not mind my telling your Lordships this—that our first choice as Chairman was the present Prime Minister. I went and saw him at his flat, which was then in Victoria, and talked to him for nearly two hours. The impression I received was that it was the nearest thing that he did not take it. Finally he decided he would not; he had too many other preoccupations. However, it is interesting to think now of what would have been the position of this great movement for what I described as a marriage of health and agriculture as a basis for the world's economic salvation, if a man of the driving force and imagination of the present Prime Minister had been the inspiration behind it.

We have to remember that at the commencement this idea was economic. The humanitarian side must appeal to every one of us, but it was not the original conception. While we must do everything we can from a humanitarian point of view, it would be a pity if we forgot that this idea may also make some contribution towards improving the general disastrous economic situation the world is in to-day. I said at the beginning that this conception was based not only on the so-called backward countries but also on the less developed countries. Australia, which may be regarded as a rich and to some extent developed country, still has tremendous resources which can be utilised. But, taking the humanitarian side and the position of the backward countries, I think we must get one thing clearly in our minds: we cannot talk of taking the total world food production and dividing it up among all the peoples of the world. We cannot meet the needs of the starving East by the great surpluses that may be produced in the North American continent. The East cannot pay, and will not be able to pay for a very long time, the money that will be necessary to keep farmers in occupation in the North American continent. Therefore, what we have to divide cannot be the total world supply. Unless the farmer in highly developed countries, with his higher standard of life, can get an adequate return for his produce, he will not produce it; and the East cannot pay that figure, particularly when we have this new American policy of parity, which hoists wheat up over two dollars.

On the humanitarian side, we have to continue the technical assistance that is already being given to the backward countries. I admit that yesterday I was somewhat critical of the delay before the idea of technical assistance was taken up, but since technical assistance has been taken up I venture to say that through the Technical Assistance Board, which embraces the United Nations and all the Specialised Agencies, the work is first-class. It is co-ordinated and more and more is being learnt every day. I give pride of position, not unnaturally, to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, because I believe it can contribute more than any of the other bodies. In fact, that is recognised, because the grant to the F.A.O. out of the moneys available for technical assistance is a much higher percentage than for any of the others. I believe they are doing that work in the best way it can be done. The only plea I would make is: Could not this country give a lead in being a little more generous with regard to the special appeal that is being made for extra money for the technical assistance? This does not go to those astronomical figures that we hear about when we come to the great developments about which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, spoke; this is a relatively small sum. I believe that no money could be better spent than on giving further aid to this technical assistance side, which, as I say, I am confident is doing admirable work.

I believe they can do the work better than anyone else, They can do it much better than by unilateral aid from the United States, with all their wealth. These so-called backward countries are very sensitive. They do not like dependence on one nation: they are always fearful of domination and political control by that nation. I have had them sitting under me at the Food and Agriculture Organisation. They feel they are playing a part and that they are controlling this distribution of technical aid. For every reason, I am certain that the soundest way to do it is through the United Nations, the Specialised Agencies and the Technical Assistance Board. I can say this with some confidence, because I was for nearly five years chairman of the World Food Council, and nobody was more critical of the methods of the United Nations and the Specialised Agencies than I was—I have said that on many an occasion. If I feel justified now in paying tribute to the work they are doing, it can be taken that I, at all events, am completely convinced. This does not involve any grandiose scheme.

The technical assistance side is doing what was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson: that is, trying to help the actual subsistence farmer to do his job a little more efficiently and a little better. That must be the starting point. We found in the Commission in 1946 that if the farming methods of those farmers are improved a certain number of people will be displaced. Then you must start small village industries to absorb them, but not plunge into great schemes. They are background schemes. The first stage is to try and improve the farming methods of these people. I am not at all sure that we are being wise in taking quite so much notice of the brilliant forecasts made of what food can be produced and what the results will be in fifty years' time. I believe if you get on with the job you will be somewhat startled to find the results you can get from these relatively simple methods. In the background of these countries there are a number of schemes involving very large sums of money; but, broadly speaking, it is the International Bank that is behind those schemes, and it is the International Bank which will be financing them. I think we can assume that Eugene Black and his people are not going to give money for any scheme unless it has been examined exhaustively. What is being done can be reinforced by the simpler methods I have mentioned. So far as the so-called backward countries are concerned, I am relatively happy that matters are moving as fast as possible; they cannot go as fast as we should all like them to go.

The other point I should like to make is this. We have been thinking of food for the unfortunate people of the world who are suffering from malnutrition. I have pointed out that this cannot be overcome by Western civilisation producing the food for them; they must produce it for themselves. But I think we should be well advised to take a look at what our own position will be. We are not at starvation point yet; we can get enough food, if we can pay for it, not to suffer from malnutrition. But can we be sure that this state of affairs will continue indefinitely? There is this great consumption of food in countries that are enjoying higher standards of living. I do not think the Argentine will be an exporter of meat indefinitely. I have even heard it said of my own country that, if our population goes on increasing at the rate it is and we do not do something to increase our meat production, by 1960 we shall not be exporters of meat. I do not know how true that is. The plea I want to make is that we should now begin to think in terms, not merely of the development of the backward countries but of the development of the latent resources of the more advanced countries, where the resources have not yet been fully exploited and utilised.

Australia, to my mind, is an outstanding example. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, that there is much that we might do, along the same simple lines, to get down to more intensive farming. In Australia there are a number of great schemes which will be of inestimable benefit in the development of the country and will lead to the production that the world will want in another ten to fifteen years' time. I believe that almost anything could be done with Australia if the people there could get over one hurdle—I have said this to my fellow countrymen in my own country, so there is no particular reason why I should not say it here. I believe that Australia could get all the money she wants for the really intelligent development of her country if there could only be agreement between the Commonwealth and the State Governments of Australia on an order of priority for the works to be carried out. However, the question is stiff with politics; every State Government wants the money that will make it popular in its own State. I ventured to say in Australia that I believe that, once the public in Australia wake up to what it would mean to Australia if they had a real order of priority for the basic development of the country and to the fact that they could get the money to carry it out, there would be such an insistent demand from the public that the politicians would have to come to some reasonable arrangement about priorities. But that is all by the way.

The point I want to stress is that we must get into a wider atmosphere than that into which we have sunk. We must get beyond the idea merely that development of the backward countries is a very good countermove to Communism, and that sort of thing, and that "Humanity is very nice." We must go wider than that and think of the future of the industrial countries; the possibility of their shortage of food, and the almost inevitable certainty of their shortage of raw materials. We have to think imaginatively of what may be done in those countries, so that the food shortage of the more advanced countries will be met and their fundamental needs for raw materials to maintain their industry and their standard of living will be forthcoming.

6.30 p.m.

LORD BIRDWOOD

My Lords, I confess that I have been rather overwhelmed, listening to the speeches on the problem of the race between food and population, to note the thought which has been brought to bear on this problem in a scientific way. I was grateful, therefore, to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, when he seemed to come to a general conclusion which suited somebody like myself, who is not expert: that perhaps the answer is to be found in terms of an unspectacular, but general education in undeveloped countries. The noble Viscount took us as far as the turn of the century, when the population of the world would have reached, I think, 5,000 million. I read an authoritative account the other day which continued the story, and came to the conclusion that within 4,000 years there would not be standing space on the earth's surface—in fact, we should be like the starlings round Trafalgar Square of an evening. If that were the case, then there would be no space left in the world to grow the food, and it seems to me that life would collapse.

I can only relate this problem of the race between population and food to a country of which I have had some experience on the ground; and that is, of course, India. It appears to me in this case that I am on the side of Sir Charles Darwin, and that the only result of these great imaginative schemes, such as the Lloyd Barrage, the Damadar Valley Scheme, the Bakhra Dam, and others, is that within a few years there will be a few more million mouths to feed. I suggest that the answer in terms to a country like India is in this spread of a little education. Family planning, as it is appropriately termed in India, has now come to be accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, referred to suggestions made in the India Five-Year Plan, but family planning is definitely" on the map" and accepted with a realism which I think would probably have been impossible in the days of a British-Indian Administration, when that Administration might have been suspect and regarded as interfering in the lives of the people. There is now a Family Planning Association, and a modest budget of 25 Lakhs rupees was voted for it in 1951 for the setting up of a family planning service. So a start has been made.

I would relate the problem to the Motion before us in this way. In an undeveloped country, and certainly in India, the ways and means available to us in the West are quite beyond the purse of the average peasant. Nor is the system of purdah any contribution for millions of women who, alas! still enjoy a status hardly compatible with the dignity of normal citizenship. Therefore, I would say that if the assistance from the West could take the form of putting a little more money directly into the pocket of the peasant, and if, at the same time, a little more education could be given to women, then over the years, in a country such as India, we might see this problem coming under control. May I give an illustration of what I mean by the significance of the education of women? About two years ago, a member of the World Health Organisation, Dr. Stone, visited India at the behest of the Indian Government, particularly in connection with advocating what I believe is termed the rhythm movement. That, as I understand it, depends at least upon an ability to count and to be able to recognise a date in the calendar month. In a country in which millions of women can do neither, Dr. Stone had to go away empty-handed. That very enlightened lady, the Begum Ali Khan, has said to her audiences, "Educate a mother, and you educate a family." I think one might add to that that you probably educate a nation. Of course, as has been pointed out, any conception of the need to limit families as a contribution to an international dilemma is beyond the comprehension of many millions of women. I would say that when women emerge from centuries of obscurity, the time will be ripe for a real attack on this problem of harnessing the population.

I suggest that countries with advanced social orders from the West can impose nothing. We can only offer financial assistance and our advice, and any international authority which attempted to impose a social system would only be adding social confusion to existing conditions. I suggest that in these days there are sufficient leaders in the East quite ready to accept Western thought in this matter, and it is perhaps significant that India's health these days, and for several years past, has been in the capable hands of an enlightened Indian lady with an education in this country.

I will not detain your Lordships long, because the hour is getting late. I was glad to note that the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, made a clear distinction, in regard to the general measures of increasing productivity, between measures of raising capital—raising the big money—and the technical assistance representing, surely, the brains, without which the big money can be comparatively ineffective. In regard to the raising of these big sums (and the Food and Agriculture Organisation has mentioned the sum of 4,000 million dollars a year as necessary to measure up to the problem), I am rather surprised that no mention in this debate has yet been made of that challenging proposal of the President of the United States on April 16 last year. Let me quote what I regard as a great passage from a great statesman. He said: Every gun made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone—it is spending the sweat of its labours, the genius of its scientists, and the hope of its children. Then, after a reference to the eternal frustration which always faces us in negotiations with the Soviet, he continued with a proposal that, as world confidence did return, so we could proceed to an ordered reduction of armaments, and the world would then be faced with its greatest and most challenging opportunity. This was his proposal: This Government is ready to ask its people to join with all nations in devoting a substantial percentage of the savings achieved by real disarmament to a fund for world aid and reconstruction. He concluded with the simple question of the Soviet: I know of only one question upon which progress waits: What is the Soviet Union ready to do? I am fairly certain that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, always takes the view that we have only to sit down and discuss how to turn jungles into fields and deserts into forests, and that in that way, over the years, we may perhaps forget the ideological political differences which divide us. Be that as it may, the official Soviet answer, in so far as any answer can be regarded as official, came in Pravda and Izvestia published on April 25 last year. Your Lordships all remember that the President had discussed the whole international scene. That offered the Soviet an opportunity to link their reactions to a suggestion for the creation of a World Development Fund, to their reactions to N.A.T.O. and E.D.C., to the non-admittance of China to the United Nations, and so on. So the Soviet chose to read into the proposal a device for political strings to be attached to aid. The Marshall Plan was cited as a device for keeping weak countries under Western economic domination, and so on. And yet it did seem, reading between the lines, that perhaps the Soviet were not entirely at their case in dealing with this particular suggestion.

It would have been interesting to see what their reactions would have been if the President had put his proposal for a World Development Fund as an isolated proposition. unrelated to the international situation. Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, that, if ever progress is to be made, this is the kind of way in which it might be made. Such a proposal has the advantage that it relates the positive proposition of material construction to the somewhat negative proposition of disarmament. I cannot help thinking that, if it were pursued relentlessly, it would eventually prove a very difficult kind of proposition to turn down. Many speakers have spoken about the urgency of this matter in terms of economics. I am, alas! no economist. We have been discussing it in terms of the "haves" giving to the "have nots," but it is not quite as simple as that. I take comfort from the views of a great economist. I believe it was the view of the late Lord Keynes that all economic policies are finally subject to men and to their motives. If this is true, one cannot judge this problem by the rules by which two and two make four. This is a human problem and, as we all know in human affairs two and two frequently make either five or three. Therefore surely it is not just a matter of subtracting from the "haves" and adding to the "have nots."

I am referring to the calibre and the character of technicians and others who are responsible for offering advice in such a plan as the expanded technical assistance programme of the United Nations to-day, particularly in view of the fact that, as possibly the noble Viscount may confirm, the whole method of that technical assistance programme is rather a hand-to-mouth method. Sums are pledged from year to year. We pledge our £650,000, or whatever it is, in September, only for the following January to December. It is difficult to see how, on that basis, long-term planning from the point of view of technical assistance and personnel is possible.

We who, for generations, have seen the firm foundations laid in Colonial territories only through the dedication of the entire lives of great men in the service of these territories, sometimes, surely, view with dismay the passing of what one might call the long-term servant in an under-developed land and his replacement by a short-term expert. I do not say that that expert is not frequently a very good man—he probably often is. Certainly, the men in leadership in such a Council as the Economic and Social Council impress one with their devotion to duty. It is certainly to breathe fresh air to turn from the deliberations of the Security Council or of the General Assembly to the toleration of the various Agencies. But I do say that the short-term expert, the technician, the official who visits a distant land, is not always a saint. In my experience, he is frequently an adventurer, sometimes sheltering under a rather false halo under United Nations patronage. I could cite the case of a country which actually refused aid, not because it did not need the aid but merely because it had seen the calibre of the men who had to interpret the aid and the way in which they spent their somewhat inflated United Nations salaries.

Cannot we effect a reform in this matter? Cannot we lend our experience to the United Nations and advocate the setting up of some kind of permanent international service, seeking its recruits from anywhere, on a very highly selective basis of long-term employment? Could we not in that way rescue and retain all that was good in that old Imperialism, and graft it on to a new system of international development? The old wisdom about putting new wine into old bottles surely applies to the sudden, swift impact of the arrival of new ways. The swift impact of new ways from the West so often leaves under-developed peoples in complete and utter bewilderment, and there is a tendency to make bad Europeans of good Africans and Asians, and sometimes even to corrupt good Europeans. Only by very careful selection and by the degree to which personnel have the chance to identify themselves with the lives of the people can this process of assistance be one of smooth transition.

May I give an example in illustration of what I regard as success? Travancore feeds itself on an inadequate diet of tapioca, from the calorie point of view. The Indian Government applied to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, I think it was, for expert assistance in this matter. The Norwegian Government sent out a deputation. The Norwegians had set up a foundation for the development of the under-developed countries. A small deputation, consisting of an engineer, a doctor, a nurse, a social service worker and a secretary, set sail for Travancore, Cochin. They arrived unostentatiously and settled in at a guest house. They got to know the people and gained their confidence. One of the first things they discovered was necessary was the need to modernise the fishermen's boats. So two wooden boats were sent off to Oslo. With great care, new, simple engines were fitted into them. They were tested, and the boats were returned. In the meantime, the team had been getting into the confidence of the people. That was a shining example of how guidance should operate. We should note that there was no ruthless scrapping at all of the old method. New methods were grafted on to old methods, and the transition was smooth. The old traditions were not scrapped. There was this sympathetic guidance, the will to accept the guidance and the will, of course, for self-help.

Some of your Lordships who know the East may recall hundreds of villages in under-developed countries where life tomorrow could be happier by far without one dollar of aid from outside, and merely with the will of the people, and, of course, a little leadership. I suggest that the real lesson of this Norwegian example was that the people found their progress and that at the same time they remained loyal to their environment. I would say it is no service whatsoever to develop a country if the only result of development is to be the imposition of this restless dissatisfaction which often comes through too hasty industrialisation, even though the immediate effect makes it possible to raise the standard of life from a material point of view.

In that sense the mere repetition of statistics seeking to prove that in America 1,200 units of electricity are used, compared with 1 unit in Pakistan, or that the average wage-earning income in this country is 100 times what it is in Burma, is not of much value. If the fruits of development are successfully to be exploited, then every economic scheme, whether it be a Governmental scheme or a scheme by private enterprise, should be balanced by an indication of the simple measures of education which are necessary to ensure that the scheme is absorbed into the lives of the people. We led the world in the 1830's, when it was a question of war against slavery. I hope that it is to be our privilege to lead the world in the 1950's, when it is a question of war on hunger and poverty. The answer to the old question "Am I my brother's keeper?" is most emphatically, "Yes." We still have to undertake that duty until it is no longer necessary for our brother to be kept. That, I suggest, must be our great purpose in the years ahead.

6.51 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I intervene in this debate with a considerable amount of diffidence, especially as the hour is late. Your Lordships have had speeches from men whose names are household words all over the world for their eminence in various branches of activity and knowledge—men who have been realising over recent years that the problem which the noble Viscount has raised in your Lordships' House to-day is perhaps the greatest problem with which humanity is faced. When men of that eminence in statesmanship, in dietetics, in social welfare, in health, and in many other important activities, have reached that conclusion, obviously one who is little more than an onlooker will feel diffident about advancing his views. Yet I feel that the reflections of one who has listened to these great men may possibly be of some slight interest.

The protagonists on the one side and the other are obviously divided into those who are optimistic about the future of mankind and those who are inclined to pessimism. There are so many intangible factors involved in the matter that it is almost a question of "paying your money and taking your choice." If the pessimists are right, the numbers of people in the world will increase so much that there will not be food for them, and many, if not most of them, will starve. On the other hand, if the optimists are right, we shall find ways and means of producing sufficient food, and producing it quickly enough to satisfy these unborn millions. But it seemed to me, in listening both to the optimists and to the pessimists, that even if the optimists were right, the result was hardly going to be satisfactory for we should only just keep up with the food supplies, and the people of the world would never do more, as a whole, than scratch a bare subsistence. In none of the speeches could I detect much anxiety as to the quality of these people, and it seems to me that unless we can provide a higher standard of life for most of the people in the world there is not very much to be said in favour of going on with life on this planet. I should like to see these great men who are occupying themselves with this problem devoting a little attention to that particular matter.

My Lords, from the great emphasis which has been given to the problem of family limitation in the debate this afternoon, we have already at any rate an indication of one line of approach to that important aspect of the matter. I do not propose to say as much as I should like to say on this, but I think one most significant point which has been brought out, particularly by my noble friend Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, is the fact that India, which has always been pointed to as the crux of this problem of increasing population, has during the last few years become vastly interested in family limitation. This is a matter of great interest to me.

If your Lordships will excuse my giving you just one personal anecdote, I should like to refer to the time when I had the pleasure and privilege of being a member of a Parliamentary delegation to India, shortly after the end of the war. While I was in the secretariat which was placed at our disposal in New Delhi—none of the other members of the delegation happened to be there—a small delegation, from Ahmenabad, I think, arrived to put their views on this particular problem to the members of the delegation. I saw this small group of people, who were anxious that I should bring to the attention of the Viceroy the real importance of family limitation in India, because they themselves saw that there was no chance for the working people of India—they were working people from the cotton mills of that great city—unless family limitation could be brought about. I said that it was not the purpose of the delegation to discuss problems of this kind and I could not promise anything on behalf of the delegation, but that I would personally have it brought to the attention of the Viceroy that this problem was troubling them. In fact, I did discuss the question with one of the Viceroy's officers, who told me that it was obvious that the Central Government of India could not do anything about it because it would be treading on the corns of the religious people in India, and that it was one of the cardinal principles of British rule that that sort of thing should never be done.

It struck me at the time that the sooner the Indians had their own Government, so that they could tackle these problems themselves, the better; and it is really interesting that in this matter, as in so many others, the transfer of government in their country to the Indians themselves has enabled them to tackle problems which the British Raj had been frightened to tackle over so many years. I am not sure that the new Government in India is tackling the problem on quite the right lines, but the fact that they are tackling it at all is, I think, of the greatest importance.

It is significant that this matter is being tackled not only in India but in many other parts of the world. It is significant that even the Roman Catholic Church, which has always set its face against this movement, is, in a sense, now tackling the problem on the lines of what is called "the safe period." That seems to me to mark a decided advance. This is a matter which one could discuss at length, but at this late hour I will say nothing more, except that it seems that from this point of view there are encouraging signs.

The matter really boils down to this: whether we can purchase the necessary time over the next generation or so to enable the problem of family limitation to be satisfactorily solved. Can we purchase the time required by producing enough extra food over the next generation or so? I think there are some reasons for a certain qualified optimism in regard to this matter. My friend Mr. Ritchie Calder, whose interesting and stimulating studies into this problem were referred to by the most reverend Primate, mentioned to me recently that the whole question of fish as a form of food has been very much neglected. I believe it to be an interesting fact that within the last ten years or so a fish, which is indigenous to the West Coast of Africa has appeared in the Far East. It was found off the coast of Java. It is a fish which provides very good protein and breeds with astonishing rapidity, so that already, within a period of less than twenty years, it has provided a considerable increase in the amount of proteins available to the people of Java, Sumatra and even as far away as Siam and Malaya. If that can happen in such a short period, surely there are possibilities also in this country. If we cultivated fish as carefully and as scientifically as we cultivate our lands, our beasts and our cereal products on the land, we could add tremendously to the supplies of food available for people in this, one of the developed countries, and, equally, in other developed countries. We, here, have particularly good breeding grounds, especially off our Western coasts, for scientific experiments on these lines.

Another interesting possibility, which again Mr. Ritchie Calder has brought to my attention, arises in this way. It is the fact that over the last fifty years or so there has been an amelioration in the climate of Northern Europe which has led to the bringing into production of a large amount of land which formerly had been so frost-ridden that it could not be cultivated. Your Lordships will probably know that for a period of from some 200 years from about 500 A.D. onwards, the climate of Northern Europe equally ameliorated, and cultivation was carried on almost to the Arctic Circle. It is an interesting fact that in some of the new fields which have been brought into cultivation in Norway in recent years, arrowheads and other weapons have been dug up which have been identified as coming from this particular period, showing that in 500 or 600 A.D. these fields were being cultivated and that, with the onset of the cold weather, they went out of cultivation. The pessimist would say, perhaps, "This happened after 200 years. No doubt if we bring this land into cultivation again it will not be long before it is frozen up once more and the large number of people who came into existence to live on the products of the land will face a worse state of starvation than if the land had never been brought back into cultivation." That may be so, but I suggest that we might buy time in that sort of way during which the problems of limitation of population could be solved, and so the opening up of this land would be well worth while.

There is another point which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, in his very interesting speech. It is a point which I do not think any previous speaker had made. This problem is likely to be solved effectively only if we have some effective world organisation to deal with it. I do not feel that the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the World Health Organisation and these other bodies are sufficiently integrated or have enough power. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, said, in his thoughtful and interesting speech, that this problem must be dealt with by the United Nations. I do not think that the United Nations has yet become a sufficient government of the world to tackle this problem effectively. Lord Boyd-Orr said that the organisation of agriculture for the production of the necessary food supplies could be satisfactorily carried through only by an efficient and incorruptible Civil Service. I entirely agree with that. I think that the Civil Service which is needed can be organised only under some form of world government. I think the whole of this debate to-day points to the need for our getting on much more rapidly with the solution of that problem of world government.

We have been brought into a very difficult situation there owing to the almost complete impasse between the Communist Powers and the non-Communist Powers, and so long as that Iron Curtain exists it seems that from the political point of view it will be difficult, if not impossible, to bring a world government into existence. It seems to me that we can probably travel faster and further by bringing some sort of world organisation into existence to deal with these problems which are not perhaps essentially political problems, though they have their political aspects, and it might well be that the problem of world government would be more quickly solved if we could devote ourselves to establishing a world organisation with real power in order to tackle this problem of food and populations and other similar problems. I am sure that if we succeed in getting a world governmental organisation with real power to tackle problems of this kind, we shall be much nearer a solution of the general problem of world government, and that would mean not only that this difficult problem would be on its way to solution but that many of the other problems which have worried statesmen over the whole period of civilisation would be well on the way to solution. With that thought, I leave this matter to the next speaker.

7.7 p.m.

LORD STAMP

My Lords, I should like for a few moments to draw your Lordships' attention to the contribution that applied biological research may make to the solution of the problems under discussion this afternoon. I particularly wish to refer to the development of the so-called unconventional methods of food production. I need not emphasise the tremendous effort that has been expended over many years in the application of the biological sciences to the prevention and treatment of human disease. Nor need I dwell on the great benefits that have resulted in the saving and prolongation of life, and improvement in health standards. What is more pertinent to this afternoon's debate, as several of your Lordships have already pointed out, is the problem that such advances have created in accentuating the rate of increase of the world population and, therefore, in increasing the difficulties in meeting world food requirements. No one, of course, would wish to see any relaxation of effort in the development of preventive and public health medicine. Nevertheless, it is evident that an equally or even more intensive effort in the non-medical aspects of biological research directed towards increasing food supplies is an essential counterpart to any advance in that direction. Unless this is forthcoming, one may well begin to question the true value of such progress in promoting the ultimate well-being of mankind.

To introduce preventive inoculation and other public health measures into already over-populated areas, is to confer a very mixed blessing, to say the least of it, if the end result is an increase in malnutrition and in deaths from starvation. The last state may well be worse than the first. The problem of feeding a rapidly expanding world population is vast and complex, as is abundantly clear from what has already been said this afternoon, and will have to be tackled from many angles. As a medical microbiologist, I am particularly interested in the contribution that research in the biological sciences as a whole may make to its solution.

In the first place, of course, much still remains to be done to conserve and augment supplies of orthodox foods obtained by agricultural means. Further extension of research is needed in the field of veterinary medicine, with the aim of improving the health and food yield of livestock by the eradication of disease, and through studies in animal nutrition and breeding. Much more remains to be learned of methods of combating diseases of plants, in controlling animal and insect pests, and so on. The provision of further facilities and trained personnel to carry out such work is therefore an urgent necessity. All this, however, is Well recognised, and does not require further emphasis. I propose, therefore, to confine myself to considering briefly possible ways of obtaining food by unconventional non-agricultural means, the potentialities of which are much less generally appreciated. In doing so, I trust that your Lordships will bear with me if I touch on some technical details, as only by so doing can I convey any idea of the range of investigations required.

There are, first of all, schemes for the mass-production of micro-organisms for food purposes, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, referred. It has been suggested that yeasts might be grown on industrial wastes such as molasses, or on the hydrolysed products of wood pulp or of seaweed and used as accessory human food. This has, in fact, already been done on a small scale in the West Indies, using as culture medium the molasses which is available locally in such large quantities. It has yet to be shown, however, that the process can be made economically worth while, though it seems quite probable that that will prove to be the case. Further research is, however, needed into the nutritive value of yeast for man and animals, and also into methods for improving its palatability. Again, the problem of its preservation also needs some attention.

Another group of organisms which appear to have considerable potentialities as food for animal livestock are the algæ, in particular the Chlorella or the green algæ, which are often seen as a green scum on the surface of ponds. These unicellular plants have been found to produce high yields of fats and protein of nutritive value when grown under controlled conditions on simple inorganic nutrients under the photosynthetic influence of sunlight or artificial light. It is suggested, therefore, that the mass production of these organisms in shallow tanks or transparent vessels exposed to sunlight might be developed as a practicable economic proposition. Considerable progress has already been made in developing this idea, on a pilot plant scale, both in this country and even more so in the United States. It is also possible that the yield of substances of nutritive value may be increased by the selection of variant strains of yeast and Chlorella as the result of genetic studies.

Apart from these two classes of organisms, there are many others not yet studied which may well prove to be of equal or greater value as foodstuffs for animals, and possibly also for man. There is also the possibility of utilising further the photosynthetic action of sunlight in building up proteins of nutritive value, by devising methods for the extraction of the proteins from leaves of plants which at present are largely wasted. Green leaves, such as grasses, potato tops and beet tops, might, it is suggested, be ground in suitable mills and their protein juices extracted. After extraction and removal of indigestible or unpalatable material these might be used to augment the food of animals, and also eventually, perhaps, of man. This process might have particularly wide applications in tropical countries where the photosynthetic action of sunlight is intense and there is a very dense lush vegetation. Mr. Pirie, the Director of Biochemstry at the Rothamstead Experimental Station, is an enthusiastic advocate of this idea. Having gone into the matter in some detail, he believes that it could be made an economic proposition and feels that it has greater potentialities than the development of mass-production methods for Chlorella, which need relatively pampered conditions for growth.

Then there are the possibilities of utilising plankton, which grows in vast quantities in the sea, as an animal food—a matter to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has already referred. I understand that in Denmark considerable progress has been made in the difficult process of harvesting these organisms by an ingenious process of electrolysis, by which they are attracted to the surface of large metal plates. The Danes have also developed a process for treating fish, and other offal unfit for animal consumption, with cultures of certain bacteria. In this way it is rendered palatable to animals and can be preserved for long periods. Without going into any further details, I think it is evident that there are very great potentialities for augmenting food supplies along these lines. Although not all the schemes which have been put forward are likely to come to fruition, any for which a prima facie case can be made out should be investigated as fully as possible.

The mass-production of micro-organisms and a chemical analysis of their products is likely to have wide applications, quite apart from the food aspects. It may well be found that many chemicals used in industry can be produced at an economic cost by this means. This may make the process worth while in some cases, quite apart from the possible value of the organisms grown as food. Some of the processes involved are already being used on a large scale for the production of antibiotics such as penicillin, and also vitamins such as Vitamin B.12, which cannot be synthesized commercially. The lowering of the costs of production resulting from research in this field can play a not inconsiderable part in reducing the costs of the Health Service and in helping the country to compete in the sale of these therapeutic substances in the export market. For these reasons, the development of biochemical engineering—or biological engineering, as I believe the Americans call it—which is concerned with all the processes I have mentioned, is of paramount importance. It requires the co-ordinated efforts of the chemist with a biochemical training and outlook, botanist, plant geneticist, engineer and so on.

The question arises as to where the training of workers and the promotion of research in this field can most suitably be carried out. In view of the importance of the engineering aspects of the work it would seem that technological colleges and institutes having well-developed facilities for teaching and research on the biological side, concerned as well in engineering, are particularly suited to the purpose. On that account, the proposals that have recently been put forward for increasing financial aid to technological colleges and institutes are all the more to be welcomed. It is very much to be hoped that when these increased grants are being allocated the potentialities of biochemical engineering in contributing to the solution of food production and industrial problems will be fully appreciated, and that every encouragement and assistance will be given to its development.

7.20 p.m.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR)

My Lords, I think we shall all be agreed that this has been a really worthwhile debate. I certainly should like to join with every noble Lord who has spoken in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, not only for putting down this Motion on the Order Paper but for what he said in presenting it to us. Looking around at noble Lords who have spoken to-day and thinking of the contributions that almost every one of them has made to the public life and thought of this country and of many other countries in the world, it is difficult not to feel extremely proud to be a Member of your Lordships' House.

This subject is of vital importance. It is of importance to us here in this country, to the Commonwealth and Empire and to the whole world. I confess I was glad that hardly any reference was made to the temporary surpluses of food that exist in the world to-day, because it would have been a pity if we had concentrated our minds on them when we are concerned with the long-term problem. I am not going to repeat the figures which have been given by many noble Lords. It is true that many of those figures varied considerably, but it is obvious that they would, because of necessity they are estimates, even guesses. Perhaps the most encouraging outcome of this debate is the fact that it is clear that most noble Lords who have spoken and the noble Viscount who presented the question to us originally do not see this as an insoluble problem. They do not see the world as facing certain famine, providing we are prepared to face the gravity of the problem—although I am not sure that I was entirely encouraged by what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and later the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, said about what we might have to eat in future. It did not reassure me very much to hear that in future we might have to exist on plankton pills with, I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Orr, a certain amount of sawdust.

I prefer to say that the real problem before us is that agriculture must keep pace with medicine. But it can do so only by a great effort. I stress the fact that it can do so, because I feel that the depressing words which the noble Lard. Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, used from Sir Charles Darwin did not present a helpful point of view from which to approach a problem of this character. If I accepted Sir Charles Darwin's opinion that whatever we do there will always be too many people in the world, I should feel it best to go home, shut all the doors and windows and turn on the gas tap. But 1 do not accept that and I do not think that the majority of your Lordships accept it either.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, recalled us from the general points of the debate to remind us that a great deal is being done, and we were all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, for his intervention in the debate. No one has more practical experience of what has been done and is being done than the noble Viscount. Before dealing with what is being done, perhaps I may mention one point which I do not propose to deal with at any length but which I must mention because so many noble Lords have spoken about it—that is, the question of birth control, particularly in the East. The reason why I am not dealing with this question is not because it a difficult one, or one to be hushed up, but simply because it is primarily a question first for the countries concerned and then for the individuals concerned. I cannot see India thanking us or the United Nations for venturing to go into India to teach the people there methods of birth control. When we think particularly of India, which so lately entered upon self-government, I cannot feel that she would welcome that sort of interference.

What are we doing to help the movement for increased food production throughout the world? I shall try to be as brief as possible whilst trying to satisfy the noble Lord, the Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, in his definition of the word "conspectus." First we are co-operating fully with the F.A.O. and in the United Nations Expanded Technical Assistance Programme. That means that we are giving aid through the services of a considerable number of personnel and also by actual money, Ten per cent. Of the budget of F.A.O. comes from this country—about £200,000—and another 15 per cent. from the rest of the Commonwealth, making a total of £500,000 from this country and the Commonwealth, a quarter of the F.A.O. budget. In addition, F.A.O. receives nearly a third of the funds of the Expanded Technical Assistance Programme and again about one quarter, £400,000, of these funds comes from the Commonwealth. In all, the income of F.A.O. is about £4 million, of which just under £1 million is from Great Britain and the Commonwealth. We are sending experts and providing scholarships for the countries which need assistance, and showing by demonstration projects improved agricultural methods.

Your Lordships are aware of the type of work that F.A.O. undertake. It includes plant breeding for ensuring higher yields and greater resistance to disease. I think it has had particular success with regard to rice and maize. Last year an extra 500,000 tons of maize was produced in Europe, largely because of the production of hybrid maize. They are making war on animal diseases. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, mention fish, because F.A.O. are taking steps to encourage what I believe to be of considerable importance—that is, inland fish culture. It is most important in certain areas of Africa as an additional source of protein—and incidentally, it goes with what is almost equally important, namely, water conservation, because the dams can be used for that purpose. So far as locust control is concerned, I am sure we all realise that that is not as complete as we should like. At one time we had great hopes of an almost immediate solution of that problem through the remarkable new insecticides that have been discovered. But great advances have been made. On a longer-term basis, assistance has been given towards land reclamation, afforestation, soil cultivation, irrigation and so on. In 1933 there were just over 600 experts sent by F.A.O. to undeveloped countries, a great many from the Commonwealth or from this country, and 250 scholarships were provided for people from those countries.

There is also the Colombo Plan, which was launched in 1950. As your Lordships know, that has played a great part in this type of work in South East Asia. All the countries in this area, except Thailand—I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for instructing me in how to pronounce it—and the Philippines are full members of the Plan, and the members include Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the United Kingdom. This year it is expected to spend over £500 million on various projects for raising the standard of living in the area concerned—that is not limited purely to food production, but a great deal of it is for an increase in food production.

At this point, having listed some of the steps that are being taken to give this outside assistance to undeveloped countries, I should like to emphasise the points made by both the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson. They emphasise—and I am sure it needs emphasising—that what is done from the outside should be mainly in the direction of assisting and encouraging local effort. It is vital psychologically. I think, also, that we should be quite wrong to assume that only the outside experts know. There are first-class men in these countries; and it is not always a matter of expert knowledge but is, as we all know in our agriculture in this country, a matter of being able to get it over to the man who is doing the daily work on the land. I have seen some of these men who are local experts, particularly in our Colonies, and I should say that they are quite first-class and little in need of outside assistance, except on the side of what I would call higher research. Looking at the record of work of the F.A.O. and the Colombo Plan, I am sure we shall all agree that it is a remarkable record of solid work on food production.

I should now like to turn for a moment to what is being done in the Commonwealth, and particularly I refer to the Empire as being more under our control. One can only say that it is much the same sort of work as is being done internationally—land reclamation, work on soil erosion, research on soils, afforestation, research on fertilisers, insecticides, animal diseases, animal husbandry, animal breeding, fish farming, irrigation—in fact, the same steps that I have already mentioned. That is all directly for food production. But your Lordships have been discussing the standard of living, and it is almost equally important that there should be encouragement of industries, too, and the production of raw materials—rubber, copper, coal, tin, columbite, bauxite and so on.

I feel that we have all been particularly interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, said about an industry which is of such tremendous importance to food production—namely, the supply of cheap nitrogen. That is only one of many instances. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, gave other instances, but the one in relation to cheap nitrogen happens to be one about which the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, and I myself, in a slightly less detailed manner, know something. There is no doubt, as the noble Viscount said, that one of the best ways of raising the standard of living by increasing food production and cheapening food production in that part of Africa is to provide cheap nitrates. I am sure we all join the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, in his hopes for development in that direction.

Taking the picture as a whole in regard to our efforts to increase production in the Colonial territories in terms of grants and loans (and by loans I mean loans on the market here, and also Government loans), and the efforts of the Colonial Development Corporation, all these put together amounted to about £120 million—I believe the actual figure was £123 million—in 1953. This is in addition to what local governments were themselves doing.

Perhaps I may conclude my remarks by listing some of the main contributions that the United Kingdom are making towards solving this problem which has been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. In addition to what I have said, we have undertaken to release up to £42 million a year for the six years of the Colombo Plan from the sterling balances held by India, Pakistan and Ceylon. We have agreed with the International Bank that £60 million of our subscription to the Bank should be used over a period of years for loans for development in Commonwealth countries. In 1953 we made a special loan of £10 million to Pakistan for increasing food production. In the same year the Commonwealth Development Finance Company began operations with a capital of £15 million, and with the power to borrow twice that amount. These loans were to be specifically for objects for which normal finance would not be available. We spent £65 million on rehabilitation and development in Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and North Borneo. We have made nearly £3 million available for technical co-operation under the Colombo Plan. The noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, raised the point of whether we could not be more generous in the provision of technical assistance. I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me if I do not give him an answer to-day. I have made a note of the point, and I will see that it is dealt with.

In making this sort of reply, the real difficulty is to know where to stop. One could say a great deal more of what has been done by this country, but what I hoped to be able to do was to say just enough to show your Lordships that we do take this subject extremely seriously, and that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to do something as well as talk about it. This is one of the really important subjects facing the world, and I want to convince your Lordships that the Government see it as such. Having talked about what we have done, I should like to repeat that it is true to say that our help is in addition to what the countries are doing for themselves and it is being planned, as it should be, so far as possible, in order to assist their own efforts.

If I may conclude on a slightly hopeful note—and I hope your Lordships will not think that, because I use the word "hopeful," I imply complacency—in 1950 it was estimated that world food production was falling behind the increase of the population. Two years later, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, said, it was found that output had actually outstripped the increase in population. It was not a large increase, and, as we know, global increases are not necessarily satisfactory in each individual area. But it does confirm the statement that I made at the beginning and the attitude of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel to this problem—that it is soluble if it is faced. It is true that the world needs of food are increasing at a colossal pace, and it is equally true that world production can also increase quite immensely, given the spirit of enterprise and assistance—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, used the word "leadership." Her Majesty's Government are determined to make their maximum contribution internationally but, above all, in those territories for which they are primarily responsible—namely, this country and the Colonies. I am conscious that many points which have been raised are difficult for me to cover at this late hour. I can assure your Lordships that I will see to it that all of them are carefully considered. May I once again thank the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, for raising this subject, and all other noble Lords who have been good enough to make contributions to this discussion.

7.45 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I shall say only a few words at the end. I am indeed grateful to the noble Earl for his comprehensive speech and for the great trouble that he has taken to prepare a reply adequate to the occasion. We have had a most interesting debate. I am sorry the noble Earl thought that he was likely to be "fobbed off" with plankton and sawdust, to say nothing of the various commodities offered by my noble friend Lord Stamp. But, as I said in my speech, we have all been living for years on thin air—on the nitrogen in the atmosphere which is converted into meat, bread and milk, so that probably we shall not have to complain, or rather our grandchildren will not have to complain, if they are made well-fed and plump on chemicals and unicellular organisms.

I agree that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, was well advised not to deal with the question of birth control. I did not deal with it myself, and made only a very brief reference to it, for the very same reason. I think that if we were to give advice on a subject of that kind to people like the Asians, it would not be appreciated. It is their own concern and, as the noble Earl said, it is for the individuals and the whole society to decide upon these matters, and not for us to undertake what might well be regarded by them as an intrusion. Similarly, the whole of our suggestions will, I hope, be understood in Asia and in Africa as merely a desire to help them to solve their own problems in their own way; that there are no political or financial strings attached to anything that has been said or suggested. Any other course on the part of your Lordships' House would be entirely contrary to the spirit of independence and of Commonwealth equality. I believe that these great schemes in India would never have been able to reach their present state of fruition without political independence. It is the fact that the people have been thrown on their own to deal with matters on their own responsibility that lies at the root of the main progress that is being made.

For the rest, the noble Earl's speech has been comforting and acceptable. It is a great thing for us to realise that so much has been done in so many directions, and that Her Majesty's present Government are taking this whole problem and its solution as a very serious matter. I am glad that at the end the noble Earl came to the same conclusion that I had come to at the beginning, and that he accepts, in substance, the proposition which I put forward. In those circumstances, I can do no other than gratefully withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.