UNDER-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LIVING STANDARDS)

§ Mr. R. E. Prentice (East Ham, North)

I beg to move, That this House supports the decision of the United Nations to designate the 1960s as a Development Decade with the objective of a minimum annual rate of growth of 5 per cent. in the developing countries by 1970 and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to co-operate with other countries in programmes designed to achieve this objective, to carry out progressive policies of economic aid and technical assistance in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, and to pursue trading policies aimed at providing bigger markets for the products of developing countries. The whole House will have learned with regret of the retirement of the right hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) as head of the Department of Technical Co-operation and the ill-health which caused him to retire. Although many of my hon. Friends have expressed criticism of Government policy in this sphere, we have all been greatly impressed by his enthusiasm in this new Department and I am sure that we all regret the cause which has led to his resignation.

At the same time, I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) upon succeeding to the position of head of the Department and I can promise him that, while we on this side of the House will be vigilant and, perhaps, critical of him on occasions, we will support him in the work we hope he will do in the Department.

The subject I have chosen, having been lucky in the Ballot, is so vast that it will be possible for me to concentrate on only a few of its aspects. I will try to do two things in my remarks: first, to make an appeal for giving this whole subject greater priority in the planning of the economic and foreign policies of the Government; and, secondly, to 814 examine some, but only a few, of the practical aspects of the problem, although I know that a number of my hon. Friends, if they succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, will be developing other specialised aspects in which they are interested.

The case for doing more by this country and other wealthy nations to help the development of the poorer countries is primarily a moral one. I do not want to spend a great deal of time developing that case because I believe that it is accepted by all hon. Members and by a growing number of people outside. There has been a kind of revolution in the outlook of people towards these matters during the last few years. In this, a number of things, particularly the advent of television, have played an important part.

When people see in their sitting rooms the poverty in various parts of the world, hungry children with deformed bodies—these conditions brought to them in programmes like "Panorama"—the whole thing becomes less remote than it was a few years ago. One can never really understand this problem and all that is involved in it simply by reading reports or bandying about statistics. One must see what is happening in a clear way.

Hon. Members were greatly impressed by an exhibition which was held upstairs last Monday through the joint efforts of the People and the Freedom from Hunger Campaign Committee. We were particularly impressed by photographs of a group of six children, all from the same family, who were the victims of snail fever. We saw their deformed bodies and their brave smiles for the camera. We also read that they would all be dead by the time we saw the exhibition.

That brought home to us the kind of problem we are discussing. Although we were made aware of the stark realities of the situation as it affected that one family, we also saw how the problems of that family are multiplied hundreds of thousands of times throughout the world. More and more people are caring about the problem.

I was in my constituency yesterday doing some electioneering. I will not dwell on that—

§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

May I offer my hon. Friend my congratulations?

§ Mr. Prentice

I thank my right hon. Friend—but I want to carry the House with me today on a non-controversial subject. I saw posters in the windows of the corporation houses—they had nothing to do with the election—concerned with the Christian Aid Week which is being conducted in association with the Freedom from Hunger Campaign and which has been organised by the local churches of all denominations in East Ham.

Many of the people displaying these posters and, therefore, appreciating the problem and willing to help, are living on below average incomes; old-age pensioners and people on small fixed incomes living in modest houses and agreeing that something should be done. This is typical of what is happening in many parts of the country.

One danger is contained in all of this. In our attitude towards this topic we may come to regard it as something to be dealt with purely by a sort of charitable response; a flag day attitude. We may have special days or special weeks or even bread and cheese lunches with the price of ordinary meals going to the Freedom from Hunger Campaign. The difficulty is that many people may regard that sort of effort as easing their consciences so that the whole thing can then be forgotten.

I do not want to speak derogatorily about the efforts of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign, or the work being done by anyone else, but it should be clearly recognised—and I know that it is recognised by the organisers of the Campaign—that what is required is not this kind of flag day response but a permament adjustment of the policy of this and other wealthy countries in favour of the poorer countries and world poverty generally. We must make it one of the priorities in our policies to help the poorer countries to help themselves. We must do it for reasons of self-interest as well as for moral reasons, which should be the primary motive. For this reason I have deliberately put at the beginning of my Motion a reference to the United Nations Development Decade, because I believe that we should start discussing the problem by asking what is needed.

By questioning ourselves on what is required by us and the other countries in the years immediately ahead—and the concept of the Development Decade is 816 also important because it stresses the urgency of doing something in the 1960s—we should not make resolutions for aid in the future but for quick, immediate action. I have found in discussing this subject a certain amount of misunderstanding because people say, "Why concentrate on the Development Decade and talk about the 1960s? Surely we shall not solve this problem immediately? Is it not bound to take a considerable time?" That is true, but we must consider what will happen if we delay.

If we achieve the objectives of the Development Decade by 1970 there will still be appalling poverty over a large part of the earth and an enormous gap between our living standards. This problem will be with us long after the lifetime of everyone in the House. The point of stressing the importance of the 1960s is not that we shall win the struggle within this period but that we may, in the years immediately ahead, lose the struggle permanently if we do not make enough headway quickly enough.

We are discussing this subject against the background of the fact that by the year 2000 the population will probably be twice that of the present population. In a period of less than forty years as many extra people will be born as the population of the earth now. These startling facts give us food for thought. In the 1950s the picture in the developing countries was this: on average, their national incomes went up by about 3 per cent. per year and their average populations went up by about 2 per cent. per year, so there was a 1 per cent. lead. Those are only average figures.

In some countries the increase in population outstripped resources and, naturally, the average standard of living went down. In the world-wide race between population and resources, resources were only slightly ahead. In the 1960s, the population of Latin America is expected to increase by 29 per cent., that of the Middle East by 27 per cent., and in South Asia it is expected to rise by 22 per cent. That is the increase in population in the decade of which we are talking.

The objective of the Development Decade, to get a minimum annual growth rate of 5 per cent. by 1970, is, therefore, the very least that is acceptable in the circumstances. It would be better if we 817 could do better, but our Government, and the Governments of every other country concerned, should accept that this rate must be achieved. It is a practicable target. It will not demand of any of our countries burdens that we cannot manage It will demand from all a greater effort than is being made at present—but not an impossibly greater one. The point I want to make is that we have to accept this as an important priority in policy making.

When the United Nations voted in favour of the Development Decade, many people reacted by saying that it was a pious declaration; that we had had these resolutions before; that people would vote for something that had good intentions but do nothing in particular about it. There is some ground for that skepticism, because I do not think that our Government or other Governments have fully measured up to what is properly involved.

Against this staggering increase of population, two attitudes can be taken. The first is to accept defeat and say that the problem is impossible of solution. We would then adopt what might be called a twentieth century version of the Malthusian doctrine. Robert Malthus's doctrine in the early nineteenth century was that we could never help the poor—that is, the poor of our own country—because they would always breed like rabbits He said that if the poor got more income, it would only mean that they had more children, with the result that they would always be poor, and that nothing could be done to help them.

One could say that about the present world position. It is possible that the doctrine is right, but I refuse to believe that it is bound to be right. Just as it was proved wrong in this country and in other countries with a high standard of living, it may be proved wrong on a world scale. If the problem is hopeless, we should realise how bad it will be for us because, apart from the moral attitude, we should face the effect on our own standard of living—if, indeed, the under-developed countries instead of improving their standard of living, lapse into something worse than at present exists, and widespread famine and disease results.

If the position is hopeless, what will be our position as an exporting country 818 without people able to afford to buy our goods? What will be our position as an importing country if the countries from which we want raw materials are in a state of chaos and what will be the prospects for peace in a world where people feel forced to turn to more extreme political remedies. We should, therefore, reject the attitude of hopelessness, and accept the fact that the Development Decade resolution for which we voted in the United Nations is practical politics and must be regarded as a matter of over-riding urgency for us, reckoned as at least as important as our defence programme, and as something in which we will be measuring up to what is needed and will not be too obsessed with the difficulties involved.

Undoubtedly, difficulties are involved, such as difficulties of balance of payments. If we start from the charitable point of view, we ask, "How much can we afford? How can our balance of payments allow us to do a little more?" We should, instead, start by asking, "What is needed? What is our share of what is needed? How can we adapt our balance-of-payments problem and other problems to that?"

A great deal has been said about the Development Decade, particularly by U Thant, who has since then devoted a lot of time—and we must pay tribute to him for it—to telling the richer countries what is required of them to meet these targets. Particularly, he has been telling the under-developed countries what they must do to help themselves. That is a vital part, perhaps the most vital part, of this whole question. He has also set out in a sort of generalised form what is required from this country and the other richer nations.

U Thant has said that the kind of target set for 1970 can be met if we commit ourselves permanently to devoting 1 per cent. of our national income to economic aid of various kinds; if we increase our technical assistance programme and send at least 10 per cent. more experts of every kind to the developing countries; if we accept his targets for the increased efforts by the United Nations Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance and by the Special Fund, and if we adjust our trading arrangements so as to secure in the terms of trade a shift of at least 10 per 819 cent. in favour of the poorer countries. None of these targets is over-ambitious, none will mean impossible sacrifices by this country or any other countries involved. All these targets are within reach—all are targets that we have not yet even begun to reach.

On the question of the 1 per cent. target of economic aid, I hope that we shall not get into the kind of argument in which one side of the House says that we are already doing this, and the other denies it. There are, of course, problems of definition but, broadly speaking, the U.N. concept of the 1 per cent. excludes private investment, excludes short-term loans which a developing country might have to pay back at such a rate that, in some cases the benefit would be cancelled out, and it excludes military aid. These are all very important, of course—private investment is important, and should grow—but the 1 per cent. means either outright grants or long-term loans on favourable terms which represent a deliberate sacrifice of 1 per cent. by the richer countries.

On that basis, our present contribution is about. 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. but there, again, I admit that there are difficulties of definition. What we are doing is about the same as is being done by Germany and by the United States. The United States people talk a lot about their generosity and, of course, their figures look bigger because they are a very much richer country but, taking their contribution as a proportion of their national income, they are doing no better than we are. France is the only nation that has reached the target.

If we and the other richer countries expand our economic growth, the 1 per cent. involves a larger amount as each year succeeds another. On that basis, and assuming the rate of growth of the richer countries is achieved, there should by 1970 be about twice as much aid going to the poorer countries as now if the 1 per cent. target is acted on, and acted on quickly, by all the countries concerned.

The only other aspect of economic aid on which I want to touch is the vexed question whether it should be tied or untied aid. There seems to be a sort of unholy alliance between the orthodox financiers and the rather strident 820 nationalists in some of the poorer countries in that both oppose the concept of tied aid. I believe that they are wrong. There is a lot to be said for an untied loan, of course—it gives greater freedom—but I believe that if the choice is between freezing the amount of aid and increasing the amount of tied aid. I see no reason why we should not increase the amount of tied aid.

Last September, I sat in the gallery of the United States Senate and listened to a debate on this whole subject. I heard a most important speech by Senator Humphrey, who was able to tell the senate that of every dollar spent on economic aid 78 cents were sent back to America to create jobs so that, in that way, this aid was in America's own interests. If aid is to be increased, as it must be, it is not unreasonable to try to tackle the problems of the donor countries at the same time as we deal with those of the recipient countries.

That is why we on this side have for long urged the Government to do something that they are now starting on a very small scale—placing contracts for goods for the aid of the developing countries in our own development districts. In that way, ships for Ghana built on the Tyneside will not only help Ghana but will create jobs on the Tyneside, so doing good in both cases. Many of our heavier industries that are producing products for which there is a slackening demand at home may still find a demand for their products in the developing countries, providing that the developing countries are helped to obtain those products—

§ Mr. T. H. H. Skeet (Willesden, East)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all United Kingdom aid should be tied, including, for instance, loans from the C.D.C. and under the colonial development and welfare provisions?

§ Mr. Pentice

No, I do not suggest that. I started by saying that we have to increase our total aid. Except, perhaps, in a special case, I do not think that we want to replace any tied aid by untied aid. I want to see more of both, but we should not object to tied aid for the doctrinaire reasons advanced against it, on the one hand, by the orthodox financiers and, on the other, by oversensitive nationals in some countries, 821 who see in it a form of disguised imperialism. I think that they are both wrong.

One special aspect is the disposal of food surpluses, and I support the concept of the world food bank recently started on a pilot basis by the F.A.O. It is only a modest effort at present but it should grow, and we should all make a bigger contribution to it. Our Government originally refused to make any contribution, on the ground that we are not normally a country with food surpluses. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom I see, replied to an Adjournment debate of mine on this matter about a year ago.

We have surpluses of milk and eggs at certain seasons, and dried milk and dried eggs can play an important part. We can also contribute by devoting shipping space to carry the food surpluses of other countries. I am glad that we are now making a modest contribution of that kind. I hope that it will grow, because one of the silliest paradoxes of all is the way in which some countries are embarrassed by food surpluses while the rest of the world goes hungry.

At the same time, this form of aid must be approached very carefully. Obviously, we cannot dump food surpluses on poorer countries willy-nilly. If we do that, the amounts involved will not, in any case, relieve hunger on a very big scale, and may simply depress local prices, so discouraging local farmers from making necessary improvements. But if it is related to other forms of capital development, it can be most useful.

Many countries, when undertaking capital projects, may find themselves embarrassed by the fact that they are employing perhaps many thousands of workmen on the building of roads, dams, and works of that kind. The workmen want goods on which to spend their wages and, if the countries concerned have to import extra food and consumer goods to meet that increased demand, local inflation and balance-of-payments difficulties can be created. If food or other surpluses of consumer goods can be given to them at the right place and time, they can help with that problem, and assist capital projects without damaging the agriculture of the country concerned.

822 The surpluses can be used in such other ways as providing meals for school children, in welfare food programmes or creating stocks against famine conditions, and so on. This is something that the Americans pioneered through their P.L. 480 programme, which the United Nations took up. I hope that our Government will help it to grow.

We all agree that technical assistance is at least as important as economic aid in the traditional sense—perhaps more important—and in many ways more productive. For instance, it is cheaper for people to go abroad and teach their skills than it is to engage in big capital projects. Technical assistance probably produces greater results for every £1 spent than other forms of economic aid. It also helps to create goodwill, quite apart from the wealth which it may generate.

First of all, this seems to me to be a field in which the United Nations should play a bigger part. For economic aid of the other kinds there are certain difficulties. I should like to see the World Bank and the I.D.A. play a bigger role, but a lot of capital aid is needed to establish that programme. For technical assistance, agencies such as the F.A.O., the I.L.O. and the W.H.O. can be of greater value. They can take a world view of the needs and of the supply of experts, which is scarce in relation to the demand. The expert who goes out under the auspices of the United Nations goes out under the umbrella of the organisation to which the recipient belongs. This is the furthest possible removed from the old imperialist relationship and is to be welcomed for that reason. We should seize every opportunity to build up the strength and prestige of the United Nations for political reasons. It seems to me, therefore, that the United Nations agencies, particularly, should be expanded in relation to technical assistance.

A crucial part of the decision to designate the 1960s as a Development Decade was the programme to expand some of the agencies, including the United Nations Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance, and the Special Fund, which carries out surveys and pilot schemes which can lead towards capital development later. Here I return to a point on which I have 823 attacked the Government before, and on which they have been attacked by many other hon. Members because, as I think, they have fallen down on their job. At the session of the United Nations to which I have referred a resolution was passed to expand this programme very quickly. It called for a 50 per cent. increase in 1962, with a further increase in 1963, and so on.

Neither the British nor other Governments who voted for that resolution lived up to it when it came to pledging sums for these agencies. Our own contribution in 1962 was the same as in 1961, and for 1963 we made not a 50 per cent. increase but a 25 per cent. increase. Ministers have said in the House how generous we were to make a 25 per cent. increase, but we are still lagging far behind the targets for which we ourselves voted, and this seems to me to be the first test of our sincerity in voting for that resolution. I hope that at the pledging conference, which I trust will take place in the autumn, the Government will take a lead and pledge themselves to a drastic increase of these amounts and that other countries will do the same.

When I was in the United States last autumn I was greatly impressed by what I saw of the American Peace Corps. I visited the Peace Corps Headquarters in Washington and I went to California to see the training programmes and the kind of people who had volunteered for the Corps and to discuss their work with them. I believe that we should have a British Peace Corps.

§ Mr. R. W. Sorensen (Leyton)

We have.

§ Mr. Prentice

What we have is a number of voluntary bodies sending out volunteers. I do not want to criticise that in any way. They do a fine job, and the volunteers are most valuable, but the point is that in the United States there were also voluntary bodies before the Peace Corps was formed. They still send out volunteers, but they have the Peace Corps as well. I am asking that we should have one as well. The only thing that we are doing for the voluntary bodies at a national level is that the Government are giving some aid to the Lockwood Committee which is coordinating their efforts.

824 On Tuesday, I asked the then Secretary for Technical Co-operation a Question about the financial help being provided by his Department and what proportion of the cost of sending each volunteer overseas was being met from public funds. The right hon. Gentleman replied: Half the cost of sending each graduate volunteer is being met from public funds, and it is hoped to send 250 such volunteers overseas this year. In addition £40,000 will be paid from Government funds this year to V.S.O. for school leavers…"—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1963; Vol. 677, c. 33.] Our own people usually spend a year between leaving school and going to university. The right hon. Gentleman added that £1,000 was provided last year for the administrative costs of the Voluntary Societies' Committee for Service Overseas, but that no request had been made for this financial year.

This does not measure up to what the situation demands. We have about 250 volunteers. The American Peace Corps has 5,000 in the field in 37 different countries or in training and about to go out. They plan to double that number this year. The whole concept was started only in 1961. They have made tremendous progress and they have had a great deal of help from the universities and from industry in the matter of training. This kind of work can be done only on a national scale. By all means let us encourage voluntary societies, but in addition let us have a Peace Corps.

§ The Secretary for Technical Co-operation (Mr. Robert Carr)

I shall hope later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to deal at great length with this point, but in comparing what America does with what is done by this country it should be taken into account that we have what the United States has not, and that is a large professional overseas service. We have about 18,000 people overseas all the time. I do not want to belittle the American effort or the need for us to do more and more, but I do not think that a straight comparison gives a true picture.

§ Mr. Prentice

That is a perfectly fair intervention and I would not want to make a straight comparison. Three categories of people are needed. First, there are the older people who go out on a professional basis as a lifetime career, or on loan for a year or two. The right hon. Gentleman gave some figures which I 825 was glad to hear. The Americans are doing this outside the Peace Corps in their A.I.D. programme. These are people who at the age of perhaps 40 or 50, when they have reached high positions in their professions, go out as advisers, and so on.

At the other end of the scale are the school-leavers who spend a year between school and university. These people may be dealt with adequately through the kind of voluntary societies which have been mentioned. In between are the type of people who go into the Peace Corps. They are usually graduates in their 20s who have some skill of a fairly high order, which is needed in these countries. Many of them are teachers and they go out on a kind of Peace Corps basis.

This is something which we have not developed as we might have done. The figure of 250 is much too small for a country of the size and resources of ours. To develop that kind of effort we need something like a Peace Corps and I believe that there are a great many young people who want to respond. After having done two years' service they would be better citizens of this country and better members of their chosen professions, and this country would benefit greatly from their experience.

The third of the headings to which I referred related to the development of trade. I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak about this in particular. I only want to make the general comment that, quite clearly, the trading arrangements between the richer and the poorer countries are at least as important as the whole aid programme under all these headings. Many of the poorer countries in the 1950s lost more because the terms of trade went against them than they gained from all the aid received from all sources. We must, therefore, give a great deal of constructive thinking to this problem.

I suggest that the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations will be a test case for all the countries concerned as to how far they really want to help developing countries, how far they regard it as a priority in these discussions to provide suitable and wider markets for the poorer countries, and how far they are prepared to pay a price themselves to achieve this. This is of tremendous importance and, as I have said, it would be to our long- 826 term self-interest to approach the negotiations in that spirit.

I am conscious of the fact that I have broached this morning a very complex subject and that all I have done during the last 40 minutes is to scratch the surface here and there. There is so much more that could be said on the topics which I have mentioned and those which I have not mentioned. I only hope that the House could discuss these matters more often. We are not likely, in the nature of things, to have many private Members' days devoted to this specific subject in the way that today is being devoted to it. But in debates on foreign affairs and economic affairs the whole of this concept ought to play a bigger part.

In other words, returning to the point at which I started, we must not approach this topic as a sort of charitable effort. We must not approach it in the spirit of giving a few crumbs from our rich man's table. This has got to become an important priority in policy making. This is something which we ought to be discussing and thinking about more often. Nothing less will measure up to the tremendous challenge with which we are faced in the second half of this century.

§ Sir John Vaughan-Morgan (Reigate)

The whole House will want to congratulate the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), not only on his choice of this subject for debate, which is quite impeccable and which I am sure can only end in wholehearted acceptance by Her Majesty's Government and by all of us in the House. I should also like to congratulate him very much on the manner in which he spoke and on the astonishing way in which he crammed so much into so short a space.

However, before I deal with the hon. Member's speech, might I, too, add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) on his return to the Front Bench. [Horn. MEMBERS "Hear, hear".] I have already expressed my sentiments to him in private and it might embarrass him if I repeated them in public.

I should also like to say a word of regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) has had to resign. Perhaps I can say this 827 almost with more feeling than other hon. Members. It is almost exactly six years since my right hon. Friend resigned as Minister of Health. I was at that time associated with him at that Ministry, and I know what a great blow to him in his career that grave illness was. Eventually he made a recovery and returned to the Government in an honourable post, but not one, perhaps, to which his experience might have entitled him. But now, to be struck down again is something more than bad luck. It is cruel.

I should like to congratulate, as I have done already, the hon. Member for East Ham, North, on the way in which he moved the Motion and on what he said. I particularly like one phrase which he used, when he said that it must not just be a flag-day response. As one who has a slight antipathy to flag-days anyway, I could not agree with him more. But I shall come back at intervals to other things which he said.

I think most of us could state in fairly general terms what the problem is. We might disagree slightly here and there about the ways and means. We have one document before us, Cmnd. 1698, the Report for last year of the Department of Technical Co-operation, which is very helpful because, for the first time, it set out what this country was trying to do and the way in which we were meeting these needs. But, as the hon. Member fairly said, this is only part of our effort and we have got to bring in to it Colonial Development and Welfare, the Colonial Development Corporation, the United Nations Agencies, and, of course, in the long run, above all and most important, investment by private enterprise.

The hon. Gentleman made a slight digression on the merits of tied and untied loans. I went through something of this at the Board of Trade. I know the arguments on both sides. One cannot really finally come down in favour of one or the other. It must depend on the circumstances in the particular country, and the particular needs which one is trying to meet, I must also say that on balance, in theory, I always come down in favour of untied loans but in practice, more often than not, in favour of tied loans. There we are; we can discuss this more fully at another time. 828 Paragraph 57 of the document which I have mentioned sets out the aims and some of the means. I should like to quote one sentence from that last paragraph: This demands a co-operative effort by all concerned in Britain. It also calls for cooperation with other industrial nations and international bodies, and above all with the people of the receiving countries themselves. I should like to amend that by making one addition, namely— co-operation by the people of the receiving countries with us. If I have a few strictures to make, they are made with the best possible intentions. I consider that there are some nations which are in some respects hindering their own advancement. First of all, are we in this country doing enough? The answer is, of course, "No." It must always be "No." We must never be satisfied and never become complacent. To answer "Yes" would argue complacency. But I do not think we need castigate ourselves too seriously. We have to ask, when we talk in terms of percentages, at what expense, if any, the increase is going to be. We must not have too much of a conscience about this. It is not by starving ourselves that we shall find the extra resources. It is, of course, out of our growing wealth that in the past we have developed an empire and in many cases laid the economic foundations of these new nations.

What we are doing now on an increased scale is to make an extension of that previous effort. But we must not be too hypocritical to ourselves. We debated health in this country on Wednesday. I listened to most of that debate and I do not recall that any speaker said that a new hospital should not be built in his constituency until one had been built overseas, or that if we needed more doctors more of them should go overseas until the greater needs of others had been first satisfied. It is going to be so with all the other services. It must inevitably be out of our wealth and surplus that we can help.

Very much is made of the growing margin between the richer and the poorer nations. We are asked, rightly, to take this very seriously. Part of this is due to what, in a peculiar phrase, is known as the "population explosion". But if one looks back at the last decade, one finds that in many cases it is true that the poor nations are slightly less poor 829 and the richer nations are very much richer. A lot of that is due to the speed of technological change in the last twenty-five years.

I believe that one of those experts who always conjure these figures from out of the blue wrote that 90 per cent. of the increase of wealth in Europe was due to the application of technological improvements and inventions—that accounts for the increase in wealth—but eventually that will pass itself on to the poorer nations. Investment will increasingly seek new opportunities in the newer countries, whereas now it has to be devoted to capital development in these countries.

The hon. Member spent some time dealing with this question of the 1 per cent. of the gross national product, and I have no doubt that at intervals during the day we shall dispute whether it should be 6 per cent. or 1 per cent. or what. I find this sometimes a little unreal, this talking in terms of percentage. If we are committed to a certain form of Government expenditure and our gross national product in a given year remains static it is quite likely that what we are spending on that service will as a percentage suddenly show an increase, and the following year, when the gross national product goes forward again, it shows a decrease. So we need to look at these figures over a long period.

What is much more important is to show that the money is spent to the best purpose and that where we are sending experts abroad their time is well spent. I am speaking, of course, only of Government expenditure. Private investment, fortunately, can look after itself. It will go where it is profitable, and profits, after all, are a yardstick of efficiency and success.

On the question of private investment—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation will be able to answer this or not—but I should like to know from him whether we are doing as much as we ought to do to emulate the United States in producing some form of capital guarantee scheme far investors abroad. This is really very important and I might almost suggest that this would be a far more constructive idea for the United Nations than one or two of its activities. The fact that investors live under such uncertainty in many countries really is a 830 hindrance. The United Nations might well devote itself to elaborating and producing what I may call Queensberry rules for capitalists so that they can be sure, in the under-developed countries or wherever it may be, the somewhat unstable countries, of being treated reasonably fair.

I think as a corollary of that that some of the under-developed countries really must develop a climate less hostile to overseas investors. It is really very discouraging to go to a country and find oneself denigrated in Press and Parliament as capitalist bloodsuckers or neocolonialists, which is the current phrase, I think. Nothing frightens investors away more than such hostility. Capital is a very precious commodity and has to be wooed; and capitalists, oddly enough, like to be liked.

I remember some years ago returning from British Guiana and being consulted on the prospects of investment in that country by a large international mining concern in this country. I endeavoured to persuade the company that it was a good field for investment, but Dr. Jagan made one of his wilder utterances. I think, reading my newspapers today, that perhaps I was a little optimistic. But no investment took place. I think that this is important. In many other countries some improvement has been made.

I was in Ghana in January of last year, and most of the accepted businesses there were very despondent about their future. An Hungarian economist had recently visited Ghana from Hungary and told the Ghanaians they needed more investment, which is very, very true. They were told that the country should compulsorily detain some 50 per cent. of the profits. This, of course, at once—this mention of compulsion—frightened them away, and many held back further investment, whereas what was stipulated as compulsory was less than they were already reinvesting voluntarily. There could not be a more classic example of how foolish that kind of thing is. I am delighted to learn from what I read that the climate for business in that country has greatly improved.

I think it is a great credit to a lot of these firms, particularly great international firms like Bookers and the United Africa Company, that despite the 831 reviling language and also tariffs in those countries, they continue to invest there. I found myself two years ago in the Congo, at the height of the chaos in that country. Nothing impressed me more that to find at that time that the United Africa Company, which has an enormous investment in that country, far larger as a whole than the much publicised British investment in Katanga, was continuing to invest there. I think it was a great credit to the company. We are sometimes told that investment is feared as neo-colonialism, which is the fashionable pejorative of the moment in those countries, and will develop some form of economic rule as a substitute for political rule. This does a lot of harm and is absolute nonsense. There is a story—I am sure it is apocryphal—in West Africa that when President Tubman went from Liberia to Ghana he was treated to a tirade against British colonialism. He said, "I only wish I had had the chance which you have had of sixty years of British rule." As one who has been to Liberia and Ghana and seen the degree of the advance in the latter I think there is a lot of truth in it.

I cannot help thinking, as I mentioned earlier, that some of the United Nations activities and the activities of its subcommittee investigating political conditions in Southern Rhodesia would do more by investigating economic conditions, and that that would be a very good thing. I speak as one who would like to see Southern Rhodesia's constitution liberalised more than it is today, but I certainly have no hesitation in saying that I would rather be an African in Southern Rhodesia than a citizen of Haiti which has been free of imperial rule for 180 years. I visited that country once and I have never seen such squalor. One gets used to squalor in the Caribbean, but what a contrast there was between that country and Jamaica which had suffered 300 years of British rule, both countries having the same climate and the same economy and having people of the same stock. Jamaica has at least made an enormous advance, and the others have not.

One other point about the underdeveloped countries is this. I think that they should have a look at some of their 832 own priorities. Sometimes one goes to a new country and notices that the development is along the wrong lines. The first charge on them should surely be to develop their own agriculture.

Last year, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), I was in Sierra Leone and we visited a rice research station on the River Scarcies a most marvellous project, a project which is just about to achieve a break-through technically, whereby rice would be able to be grown in areas of the world which have never been able to grow it before. I am putting it in rather untechnical terms, but it is something which could be a revolution in many countries. Yet that research station was suffering from difficulties from lack of funds and from lack of co-operation between the Governments in West Africa. That is not a reflection on us. That is a reflection on those in those countries who are not giving them the support they ought to have.

In some countries one visits one sees them, in the first flush of enthusiasm, fostering uneconomic industries, sometimes under pioneer industry legislation and sometimes under tariffs. They sometimes have what I would call a smoking chimney complex. They take the line that any factory is a good thing, whereas money spent on agriculture—I am not talking of plantations, but of subsistence agriculture—on education, is regarded as comparatively less important.

Of course, most new countries enjoy a blaze of economic activity following independence, but some of the projects are quite irrelevant to the needs of those countries. Take one example. Must every country have an international airline? There really are other forms of extravagance which one sees which I think are a little reprehensible.

There is the question of all the panoply of wealth of the élite of politicians in poverty-stricken countries. I will be very discreet here and say that not long ago I visited a certain seat of Government in Africa. I was taken in a car to see what was described as a housing development. It was, in fact, residences for Ministers including one for the Governor which is costing £250,000. It was a rather unhappy contrast with some of the other things I saw.

833 I happened to have visited that country before when was a Minister at the Board of Trade, and, perhaps for sentiment's sake, I asked to see the old Government House where I had stayed before. It was a fine and imposing residence. It was rather a shock to discover that the former seat of Imperial power had been downgraded to a Government guest house, and not even for V.I.P.s. Quite frankly, that type of extravagance, even though it is accepted cynically by the people of the countries, is discouraging to expatriates and to the people who go out to serve other people's countries.

What more ought we to be doing on our side? The hon. Member devoted much of his time to the question of terms of trade. There, I think, we would all agree with him. We must do all we can to increase the number of commodity agreements, but it really is not enough just to say this. We must point out to people that no commodity agreement works well unless the consumer is represented as well as the producer, and unless the terms which they fix are seen to be fair to all concerned. That is the way to success, and it is stability rather than a higher price which is really of first concern.

Again—I hope I am not reminiscing too much—remember that when I was at the Board of Trade we had a crisis over tin. Against the advice of the consumer countries the Tin Council had raised the price of tin sharply by a very large amount. What happened? The Russians at once, like good capitalists, seized the opportunity of dumping their enormous surplus stocks of tin, probably largely from China, on to the free market, and the whole of the tin agreement was for a time in jeopardy.

§ Mr. Skeet

Chrome.

§ Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan

Chrome is another instance. It really does not pay to be too greedy. On the other side of technical aid, I shall certainly not repeat what the hon. Member said, but I think he was really a little unfair to our efforts, in comparing our voluntary schemes with the Peace Corps. I have met both that and Voluntary Service Overseas. (Incidentally, it is not a very happy name—Voluntary Service Overseas. We must try to find a more graphic one, like Peace Corps. It is very much needed.) 834 I do not think we need be ashamed of the quality we have. What we need to improve is the quantity.

Last year in the Gambia I met two boys—they were only about 17—who had just left grammar school in this country. They were working in the teachers' training college at Yumdum, which had been transformed out of the original hen houses of the Gambia poultry scheme. It was one of the most remarkable transformations in history, for they became very nice places for teachers. These boys were a great credit to this country. They were having an extraordinary influence on their colleagues out of all proportion to their age and their experience.

This is something of which this country can be very proud. I agree with everything said in the Command Paper I quoted. We are moving towards an entirely new pattern. We are going to have national service but it will be service overseas. One hopes that, at some stage, whether it is when leaving school or university or later, our young people will all play their part in this great task.

This will best be developed on voluntary lines with goadings and help front the Government. It is something that can capture the imagination of the nation, and I hope that we shall hear more of plans for its extension. But one thing which has struck me forcibly is the difficulty of the cost of air fares. It is my good fortune to travel a good deal by international air lines and I have been impressed by the number of empty seats. Why should not some of these students going overseas be treated as stand-by passengers?

I understand that if one is an employee of an air line one can travel for 10 per cent. of the fare. I am told that this privilege is extended to one's family. I should like to see it extended far more widely. There are many empty seats in aircraft going to Africa, so why should not boys from Reigate Grammar School, for instance, be allowed to occupy them during the long vacation in order to do service overseas. There is plenty to do. Dozens of schools and projects out there would be grateful for the aid of these young people. I throw out this suggestion as a passing thought which has only just occurred to me.

I am conscious that the hopes of the free world rest on our being able to deal 835 with the problem of under-developed countries. But we in the West have not done badly, and do not let us pretend otherwise. Perhaps the most hopeful development of this decade is that many of the developing nations are beginning to realise that aid from the West is disinterested, while aid from the other side of the Iron Curtain is less so.

Not long ago, Mr. Dean Acheson said that Britain had lost an empire and had not yet found a rôle. Many of us were annoyed at the time—which we really should not have been—because it seemed to be fallacious and irrelevant and to show that Mr. Acheson's view had stuck in the eighteenth century. The truth is that we have found a rôle. It is in this kind of aid. It is a new form of the rôle we have always played. Where before we brought law and order and good government, today we have to help on a wider scale the same people, raising them out of poverty and sickness and squalor. We have to do this not only for the sake of humanity but also for our own sake.

§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

I join with the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and with my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) in expressing sincere regret at the reason for the resignation of the right hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) from office. We wish him well and a complete recovery.

I also join in welcoming the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) to office again. I do not know whether he feels very happy at taking up his post the day after yesterday, but we know his ability and competence and we all look forward to his drive and energy in the short time which remains to him as a member of the Government.

It is good to see so many right hon. and hon. Members present today. This is a vast subject, but with so many wanting to take part in the debate it falls on us to confine our remarks to a reasonable time. I shall, therefore, confine myself to two major aspects. My hon. Friend made an admirable speech. It was informed and constructive, which is what we have come to expect from him and which makes him such a valuable Member of the House.

836 This problem that we are considering today is an old one. It may be stated in very plain terms. These are that more than half the people in the world are hungry—they never get enough to eat from birth to death; they are plagued by disease and they are held down by illiteracy. This old problem has been made terrifyingly urgent for many reasons, and it is to two of these that I want to devote my speech.

The first reason for the terrifying urgency of the problem is the explosive growth of population, and the second is that, particularly since 1945, we have seen a tremendous change—indeed, a revolution—in the political scene of the world by the emergence of large numbers of new nations who have gained political independence and now face the colossal task of building viable economies, raising standards of living and fulfilling the expectations to which the very struggle for independence gave rise.

It is of vital importance for all the countries of the world—not least those in the West—to see that these nations succeed. The price of failure can be terrifying not only for them but for us as well. First, then, I want to deal with the problem of population. It is now estimated that in many of these underdeveloped countries the population is increasing by a net 3 per cent. and in some cases by a net 4 per cent. per annum. That means that the population will double in twenty-five years. It is very difficult for us to imagine what this will be like in the countries plagued by such poverty. I lived for a generation with the kind of poverty we knew in this country, but the poverty in Africa and Asia is the terrifying poverty that is always on the margin of starvation and is much more deep-rooted.

We have been, and are still, deeply concerned about the Congo. One thing we should remember about it above all was how rapidly, after the interruption of normal life, the line was crossed between mere existence and actual starvation. Within literally a few days of normal communications and supplies being interrupted, people were dying of starvation. That situation is true of other nations besides the Congo. And if it is true now, what will it be like in years to come, when the population is even greater?

837 I have seen an estimate by the United Nations of what the population of the world will be at the end of this century if present trends are maintained. This will be part—perhaps the biggest part—of the changes which will take place. According to this estimate, the population of the world will double by the year 2000. In Europe—excluding the European part of Russia—and North America the population will increase by about one-third, from 621 million to 870 million. In Asia—excluding Japan and that part which is in Soviet Russia—Africa and Latin America, where the poorer countries are, in the main, located, the population will double from 2,067 million to 4,826 million. Thus, in these continents alone more people will be alive than the total population of the world at present.

This is the gravest problem facing all the nations of the world and the United Nations, as their representative. It determines our priorities. The first essential in all these countries is to grow more food as soon as possible and as quickly as possible. Unless we are able to do that as rapidly as the population increases, we shall be overwhelmed and most of our other plans, however good they are, will be completely irrelevant.

We have good friends in those countries, particularly those associated with us in the Commonwealth. When one thinks of these problems the first impression is one of being overwhelmed. I know that there is the whole question whether family planning should be bound up with this, but this is a matter for the people themselves to decide; it is not for us to tell them.

What is encouraging is that the United Nations experts and others are of the view that if we—rich nations and poor nations alike in co-operation—are prepared to act as one, it is possible to increase production of food very quickly and prevent the growth of population from overwhelming us.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, food production could be increased in all countries by at least 50 per cent. by better and more intensive use of existing land, by recovering land which is now running to waste and is not used at all, and by the better and more intensive use of fertilisers.

838 I had the very great pleasure, along with the right hon. Member for Reigate, of seeing the research work which was going into rice-growing. I hope that this work is not being cut short of funds. I admired immensely the enthusiasm of the people doing that work. They believed that they were on the eve of a very big break-through, which would be significant not only for the country in which they were working, Sierra Leone, in the Continent of Africa, but for the whole world. I remember my visit with very great pleasure.

I wish to refer to an example of what can be done in cultivating land in India by a better and more intensive use of fertilisers and manures. It is estimated that 30 kilos of nitrogen per hectare would increase rice production by 10 million tons per annum. If this is true, here is one respect in which we can help. We know how to produce fertilisers in this country. We have a surplus production of fertilisers over the amount that we use.

I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if here I refer to my constituency. I have been discussing with my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George), my next-door neighbour, the problem of the future use of the Royal Ordnance factory at Pembrey, in my constituency. There are other similar Royal Ordnance factories which were built for the purpose of manufacturing explosives during the war. The factory in my constituency, which is owned by the Government and is in process of being closed down, is in an area scheduled by the Government as an area of high and continuous unemployment.

I am told by people who are competent to know that this factory could be easily transformed in a matter of weeks into a factory to produce fertilisers. It is equipped with machinery, and the necessary technical knowledge and skill are available. Everything is there. All that is required is for someone to make a start.

This is a commentary on the situation in continents like India and shows how vitally important it is that democracy should succeed in India. This is one of the things which may decide the fate of the world. I am glad to see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign 839 Affairs present. He, like other hon. Members, will realise that the success of democracy depends largely on solving this problem.

As I have said, it is estimated that better and more intensive use of fertilisers could increase rice production by 10 million tons per annum. We in this country are producing fertilisers that are running to waste. This is a commentary on the whole world situation. So many of these problems could be solved by using material resources and human skill which are not at present being used. The first priority, therefore, is to grow more food in the richer and in the poorer countries. That is why it is right to emphasise that in all our plans this must be the first priority.

I hope that the Minister will have something to say about the second point that I wish to raise. In implementing the Development Decade resolution, which, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North, I support, it is essential that the under-developed countries should have the necessary skill and knowledge, particularly in administration. Whatever plans we make, and whatever resources we may provide, unless there is the necessary administrative skill on the spot we shall not achieve our purpose. In fact, the chance is that we shall defeat our purpose.

I have read the Bridges Committee's Report on Training in Public Administration for Overseas Countries. I quote only a part of one paragraph in which the Committee gives an example of the need for administrators at the higher level. It points out that in the group made up of Ghana, the three regional governments and the Federal Government of Nigeria, Sierra Leone, the Gambia and the three East African territories, namely, Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, at least 25,000 to 30,000 Africans have had or will have to be trained to man the senior positions. The Report calls for urgent measures, for which the main initiative belongs to the overseas governments themselves, but which will also involve a good deal of external aid in many cases. The Report then goes on to make recommendations about what can be done.

840 Thirdly, I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North about the Peace Corps. If we want a name for a similar corps for this country why not "Crusaders of the Twentieth Century"? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who takes an extraordinarily keen interest in this subject, has written one of the best books which has been written in recent years on it. I speak with great confidence here, because very shortly my right hon. Friend will be crossing the Floor of the House.

I am sure that the people of this country would back any Government which took real and effective measures in this field. I believe that most of them would say "Yes" to a Government with the courage to ask them to give and go without. I say to my own party. "Do not be afraid of going to the country and asking the people to vote for us so that we may give rather than take". If we did that, I believe that we should get a response.

I believe that the people of this country are developing a guilt complex about the fact that we are enjoying our present standard of living in a world which is poverty stricken. They have a guilt complex that the fact that we have "never had it so good" is partly due to the fact that other countries have never had it so bad. It is time that hon. Members on both sides of the House said this.

The tide of trade is turning against the under-developed countries. They have a trade deficit each year of 1,000 million dollars. In other words, they buy more from the rich countries than the rich countries buy from them to the extent of 1,000 million dollars a year. It is they who are aiding us, not us who are aiding them. That is the truth of the matter. Their annual deficit wipes out entirely the aid that they get from the World Bank. I therefore say that we should give them our fullest possible support. I am sure that our people will support them in every possible way.

I am a treasurer of one of the organisations—"War on Want"—which is concerned with this matter. Speaking for myself and all my colleagues, we realise that the little that we are able to do only touches the very tiniest part of the problem and that this is a problem which 841 charity cannot solve. We seek to bring home to the people of this country that the problem can be solved only by international action on a massive scale and by all the countries of the world joining together.

In my capacity as treasurer of this organisation, I often have the privilege—I shall be doing this again during the next few weeks—of speaking about this problem to the fifth and sixth formers in our schools. I have been in many schools during the last twelve months, and every time I have come away very proud and deeply moved and with more confidence in the future. We hear and read so much about young delinquents that we forget that they are only a very small minority of our young people. For the most part, our young people are wonderful. They are the children of the Welfare State. They are fine physically, mentally and spiritually, and they are all keenly interested and anxious to serve.

I hope that the Minister will not turn down the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North, for many of these young people would like the opportunity to serve and it would do them the world of good. I should like to see our universities exchange more students with the universities of Africa, Asia and elsewhere, because the friendships formed would be of great value in themselves, and, more than anything else, would establish links with the young people coming up in all these territories which would be of enormous value for the future.

I entirely support the proposal for a Development Decade. If I had any criticism of it, it would be that its objectives are so limited. In the background to the figures of the growth of population and the increase in national income, even at the rate projected by the Development Decade, a major part of the problem will still be left unsolved. I hope that our Government will give the fullest support to the project and to its being organised through the United Nations.

I would be the last to decry the efforts made by the United States of America, ourselves and others, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeets) asked about C.D.W. and C.D.C. The Colonial Development and 842 Welfare Act was a fine piece of legislation and did immense work in building up some of the essential social services in the old Colonial Territories. The Colonial Development Corporation did very good work. It had its failures, but anybody who is not prepared to face the occasional failure had better not enter this field. There are so many incalculables that there must be failures, but we should not be daunted. The worst thing of all is to use a failure for partisan ends, and I hope that none of those who have done that are proud of it. I hope that the very fine men and women who were trained in the Colonial Service will be used to make up deficiencies in overseas territories and that we shall give our fullest help.

The other day, I read some words which have remained in my memory. The writer presented what he said was the greatest challenge of our day. It is the challenge presented by the fact that the scientists and technicians have made the world a parish and the people of the world next-door neighbours, but that the world made a parish is more deeply and bitterly and perilously divided than at any time in the annals of man.

We spend a lot of time here discussing one of the divisions, the division between the free world and the Communist world, between East and West, between the nuclear blocs. We know that that division has to be bridged and bridged in time, for we shall otherwise destroy the whole of mankind and have no problem left to us.

But the other division, the division between the one-third which lives in developed societies enjoying an ever higher standard of life and entering what has come to be called the affluent society, and the two-thirds of the human race who are sunk in poverty and plagued by disease and held back by illiteracy and yet swept by what the Prime Minister has called the wind of change and demanding a place in the world. That is the challenge to all of us.

On the whole, we can look back and say that we have made our contribution to the changing of the world and to the transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth. That has given us a new influence and a new prestige in the world and I hope that we shall 843 appreciate it, and that in all these efforts, particularly in this imaginative project of the Development Decade, we will not be found lagging behind in resources, in money and in help through personnel and skill and knowledge. I hope that we shall be in the lead. That is the rôle which we can and are best fitted to play in this rapidly changing world.

§ Sir Richard Thompson (Croydon, South)

Like every hon. Member, I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) for the constructive and useful way in which he has used his good fortune in the Ballot. I have many reasons from general and personal experience for welcoming this opportunity to make a short intervention.

During my time in this House, it has been my privilege for a time to be Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. While I was there, I had unique opportunities for acquiring experience at first hand of some of the very things which are the substance of our debate. For instance, I was this country's representative at the meeting of the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East of the United Nations, in 1960, a gathering which took place at Bangkok. It meets annually and it discusses largely the great problems of how aid can be fruitfully applied. That gathering in that part of the world happens to represent half the human race, which gives some idea of the immense concentration in certain areas of the people who are the recipients of what the better developed countries can do for them.

It was also my good fortune, in September, 1960, to sign, on behalf of this country, the Indus Waters Treaty, a very enlightened treaty which brought together not only India and Pakistan and ourselves, but also Western Germany, the World Bank and the United States in a co-operative project whereby the tremendous problem of irrigating the northern part of the Indian sub-continent for the benefit of both nations which live there could be pushed forward.

That kind of co-operative project, where the recipients are, as it were, drawn into the process of the planning and the provision, is very useful. It 844 takes a little of the sting out of aid. We are often told that aid is given for selfish reasons, but I believe that in these very big projects, in which we can be associated with other friendly countries with common interests, we can at one stroke remove the idea that we are doing something purely for selfish or national reasons. The hon. Member for East Ham, North went further and preferred to channel most of this work through the United Nations. I would not go as far as that.

I was born in the Indian sub-continent and I lived there for many years, returning there for many years to earn my living. I can claim from my years in India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon to have spent a large part of my life working in countries of the very kind whose difficulties and special needs we are discussing today.

There is another reason why I am glad to support the hon. Member for East Ham, North. Among his many claims to fame, the outstanding one is that he happens to be a constituent of mine and—who knows—a little bread cast upon the waters in a debate like this and I might have his vote at the next general election! I detect a certain tinge of scepticism in the hon. Member's reception of what was intended to be a graceful tribute to him, but let us not waste time on that at this stage.

I add my tribute and welcome to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) who is to wind up the debate in his new garb. We remember what a splendid and sympathetic job he did a few years ago when he was at the Ministry of Labour, and I am sure that he will bring to this most important task those same qualities of mind that he brought to the last one.

What this Motion asks us to do—and it is none the worse for that—is really to spur on and to redouble a process which is going on now. I hope that in our general support for the Motion, which I imagine is quite assured we shall not, in an excess of what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) described as a guilt consciousness, in any way overlook what we are doing in this country, and what I hope and feel sure we shall continue to do.

845 As a people we are very good at making practically nothing of our own achievements and running ourselves down in a self-deprecating sort of way, and many people who do not know, and who cannot know, the background to everything that is going on today take this criticism as being entirely valid. I do not accuse the hon. Member for East Ham, North, of taking that view—he knows far too much about it—but there is a view in the country today that we are not perhaps pulling our weight in this respect as we ought to do.

The fact is that during the last few years nothing has been growing faster than our economic and technical assistance to less developed countries. I got out some figures which showed that this aid, which totalled £81 million in 1957–58, rose to £161 million in 1961–62. That is the last year for which we have complete figures. I understand that they show the fastest rate of increase of any category of Government expenditure. I am not saying this in any sense of complacency. I am not saying that therefore we can be entirely satisfied with what we have done, but we ought to realise that over this comparatively short period we have doubled our effort—a period, incidentally which coincided largely with the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper) as Minister in charge of the Department, and whose departure, and the reasons for it, we all greatly regret.

When the hon. Member for East Ham, North, says that we want a higher priority for our efforts—and I agree with a great deal of what he said—I think we should realise that Government expenditure over the last five years in this department has risen faster than that in any other department, and that, whether or not we think enough is being done, it shows that at any rate a great deal is being done.

The hon. Member for East Ham, North, is right in saying that the limiting factor on the monetary side is the balance of payments. This needs saying although I do not think it means that we must sit down under it. When we get to these substantial figures which we have reached now, they cease to be just subheads in a larger vote. They represent a substantial sum indeed which we have to consider in relation to the whole question of our overseas earnings, be- 846 cause, after all, it is on the surplus that we earn that the scale of our provision of aid to these countries is founded.

I hope, too, that we shall not forget or under-estimate the great rôle to be played by private investment in this whole problem of, as the hon. Member for East Ham, North, eloquently described it, helping people to help themselves. My right hon. Frend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) had a word to say about this. He was right in saying that private investment will go ahead probably at a much greater rate than Government aid provided reasonable conditions of security of capital and investment can be provided in the recipient countries. This has been said many times, but when one sees the amount of private aid which is going out now—I understand that it has averaged about £170 million per annum for the last four years—one gets some picture of what it might be if some of the political doubts and uncertainties could be resolved.

I think that many of the developing countries realise that, but it is most important that we should help them, as it were, to get the chip off their shoulder about private investment. Private investment can do nothing but good in these countries, and it has the great advantage that, as it does not stem from any particular Government source, it cannot be described as a sort of neocolonialism or whatever it is called at the moment. The extent of private aid from this country is running at about the same level as Government aid, and depends really on how stable and how attractive the recipient countries can make their economies to attract the industrialist and the investor. It has not been easy to put this over, but I think that there is growing appreciation of the truth of it.

The hon. Member for East Ham, North wanted to see the much-quoted figure of 1 per cent. of the gross national product devoted to this project, irrespective of other considerations. Estimates vary as to what we are doing now. My estimate is that we are doing about 0.7 per cent. of that figure. Whether we think it is enough or not, I think we should realise that the figure for France, who also has a big hand in this because of her former colonial empire which is a large candidate for aid 847 is 0.5 per cent.; for Germany, a very wealthy and properous country now, having written off her war disaster and losses, it is 0.31 per cent.—under half of what we do; and for the United States, although great in total, it is 0.25 per cent.

Percentages can be misleading, but I think we should realise that both in actual and percentage terms this country is pulling its weight. I am not saying that we cannot do more, but do not let anybody point the finger of scorn at us and say "You are all right. You have a high standard of living, but in view of your great imperial past, your Commonwealth heritage, call it what you will, you are not doing anything like as much as you should for these people". It may be that we should do more. I am certain that we should, but let us not, with our usual English genius for understatement, underestimate what we are doing now.

I think that the generally insufficient appreciation of our effort, both in this country and abroad, and in some of the recipient countries, is really due to three things. The first is—I referred to our national genius for understatement—that we regard this as the proper job for one member of the Commonwealth to do for another without necessarily making too much noise about it. Secondly, about 25 per cent. of the aid given is what the hon. Member described as tied aid, tied to the purchase of materials and finished goods or skills from this country. Whatever we feel in the argument between tied aid and untied aid, it is the tied aid which produces the more obvious propaganda results. If one is able to say that as a result of making a loan one has equipped a country with a new hospital or steel mill, then the recipient knows where the development is coming from and one's own country knows, from the increase in its exports, that the aid is being fruitfully used. Whatever the economists say, the fact that only about a quarter of our aid is tied lessens the impact that it might otherwise have on people, for they do not realise the magnitude of what we do.

The major part of our aid is budgetary. It is a straight help to the national finances of the country con- 848 cerned. That is largely the result of history and the fact that many of the recipient countries are former colonial territories whose budgets in those days had to be supported by a subvention from us. How different is the attitude of the Russians! Their aid is always tied, and always accompanied with the maximum propaganda flourish. Although I do not advocate taking over their methods, I was very much in sympathy with the hon. Member for East Ham, North when he said that if we had to choose between no aid at all and tied aid in order to have an increase in the present aid, then we should go for tied aid. There is plenty of advantage to this country from making bilateral deals with some countries to which we give aid whereby it could be shown that our own exporters and manufacturers had some benefit out of it. I see no need to be ashamed of that. In his Budget speech my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an offer of £10 million if the items to be supplied under it were associated with manufacturing activity in some of the areas of unemployment which we are anxious to bring back to full economic performance.

I welcome the conception that we should increasingly work with what is known as the Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D. because in this way some very large programmes can be undertaken which we could not tackle alone. This has the advantage that because the aid comes from more than one country the recipient country need not feel that there is any suggestion of pursuing a national policy aim in giving the aid.

Another point not sufficiently appreciated in the United Nations or in this country is that we are the second largest contributor in money terms to the United Nations Expanded Technical Assistance Programme and the largest of all contributors in personnel serving under United Nations technical Assistance teams. That latter figure needs rubbing in quite a lot. We are making a substantial contribution on the manpower front.

If I were to be asked to state my ideas about priorities of what we can do in putting more steam and mare shove behind this programme, I should reply 849 that I should like to see concentration on doing what we are doing now in the way of providing teachers, scientists and administrators, where they are asked for—in short, in providing skill and education as much as material, plant and factories.

I believe that, in the all-important exercise of helping these countries to help themselves, it is by the training of their young people to do the jobs which eventually they will have to take over—and with which this country in many cases has for years been associated—that most can be done. When I was at the Commonwealth Relations Office it was my good fortune to help in the passage of the Commonwealth Scholarships Act, which made a definite contribution under this heading. Surely there is quite as much to be done in enlarging the opportunities for the higher education of these people in their own schools, universities and colleges as there is on the purely material front.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Would the hon. Member use his influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the principle of aid to developing countries, in respect of under-utilised resources in this country, to books and other educational equipment?

§ Sir R. Thompson

I am delighted with that intervention by the hon. Member, who has shown particular interest in this matter. I will certainly do so.

That leads me to a hobby-horse of mine. I am surprised that the Government, in connection with their training programmes overseas and their efforts to raise living standards by the provision of more education, have not made more use of basic English. The House decided at the end of the war—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) took a leading part in it—that basic English was one of the most remarkable ways of spreading knowledge round the world, and of spreading it in the basic tongue in which most knowledge is recorded. The House voted a sum of about £25,000 which was paid to the inventor of Basic English, that great scholar, the late Mr. C. K. Ogden. It was the intention after the war that this should become one of the most powerful means at our disposal of raising 850 living standards and spreading knowledge of science and what may be called the British tradition. But it does not seem to have been used. I could never find out why. We voted money for it, and it started with great publicity, but it seems to have vanished in some pigeon hole. It is a marvellous system which we have at hand and which we do not seem to use.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) in the point which he made. Anything we can do Ito promote the dissemination of books at cut prices, negligible prices if necessary, in those countries of Africa and Asia should be done. Something is being done, but I want to see much more done.

I want to say a few words about the population explosion. Unless we take into account the staggering increase in population which is going on—a great deal of which is the result of better medical care and standards of nutrition—all our estimates of the amount of aid that we shall have to supply will be completely awry. I will not go over the figures which have been stated before in the House, but the prospect of having to gear our effort to that kind of increase is a staggering one. We shall be in the position of the Red Queen—of running frantically and yet finding that all our increased provision is swallowed up because there are so many more mouths to feed.

I do not know what the answer is. What is called family limitation, or birth control, raises questions which nobody in this House can settle; they must be settled in the countries concerned. Furthermore, moral issues are involved, upon which 1 do not wish to touch this afternoon. But unless this population factor and this geometrical progression of increase can be tackled, merely to direct tremendous concentration upon food production, as was advocated by the right hon. Member for Llanelly, will not prove to be a complete answer. We need a more radical solution.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

Has the hon. Member read that the World Health Organisation is shortly to have a debate on this matter, and that there are hopes that the attitude of the Roman Catholic community towards the subject may be rather different 851 from what it has been in the past. I ask the hon. Member to urge the Government to play a very constructive part in this new and most important event.

§ Sir R. Thompson

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is quite right. This tremendously sensitive and important question is to be debated quite soon. We cannot pretend that this is a subject that we should not dig into. It is pregnant with possibilities for the future. It may be the answer to this vast population explosion. I quite agree that there is a new feeling about this question, even in quarters where at one time this possibility would have been almost unthinkable.

I welcome the Motion, which has given us a chance not only to state what needs to be done but also to take a little modest but not complacent credit for what we are now doing. It is a very proper theme for the House to pursue. I find no contradiction at all in the fact that whereas we were once a great imperial power—because of which we acquired a unique responsibility for nearly one-sixth of the human race—today, in changed conditions, although we no longer have the same political responsibilities we nevertheless retain the moral sense that we must continue to do something pretty massive about aid for that part of the world.

§ Mr. Arthur Henderson (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

In view of the comparatively large number of hon. Members on both sides who are anxious to speak in the debate I undertake to confine my remarks to less than 15 minutes. I hope that I may say that without casting any reflection on any hon. Members who have already spoken. I associate myself with the remarks made about the preceding Minister of the Department represented here this morning, and I also add my good wishes to the new Minister. On behalf of the United Nations Parliamentary Group, which has 190 Members from both sides of the House, I can say that we will co-operate and do everything we can to help him in the great task which he has now undertaken.

The World Health Organisation has recently published some very startling facts, which indicate only too clearly the magnitude of the problem facing the 852 world today. It is estimated that there are 100 countries, with a total population of 1,250 million people, with an average per capita income of less than £40 a year. This compares with an average per capita income of £400 a year in the Western developed countries.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has drawn attention to the great increases in population which are likely to take place during the next thirty years. It is estimated that by then the world's population will be double what it is today. Even though we were to continue the same amount of endeavour as has characterised the last fifteen years, it is extremely doubtful whether anything could be done materially to raise the standards of living of such a vast number of people.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) said that we had done something. He argued whether we were or were not spending more than 0.5 per cent. of our national product. I do not think that we should take up too much time in arguing about percentages. A great deal has been done. Since 1946, £10,000 million have been spent by the developed countries in assisting the under-developed countries, but the sole result of this has been to increase the per capita income of the ordinary individual in those under-developed countries by 1 per cent. To put it another way, there has been a £1 increase per year in his income. It is, therefore, clear that it will not be merely a question of pouring money into these under-developed countries.

Reference has been made to the increase in population. I was interested in the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) about the attitude of the Churches in this and other countries. I hope that not only the Roman Catholic Church, but the other great religious organisations will not ignore the existence of the great problem of the so-called "population explosion". This problem is a matter for individuals, and no one suggests that it should be otherwise; nevertheless, I believe that the action taken by the Parliament of India some years ago, in passing an Act of Parliament with the direct object of encouraging a measure of birth control, provided an example of what can be done on an official basis.

853 But I am not too disturbed by the prospects of this trend in population. Dr. Ewell, a famous American scientist, recently estimated that the world could support 10,000 million people with its present land area, provided that full use was made of all the existing scientific aids. For example, he said, that Japan produces per agricultural acre sufficient food for 6.2 persons whereas India produces food per acre for only one person. This is explained, of course, by the fact that Japan uses 100 lb. of nitrogen per acre whereas India uses only 1 lb. per acre.

It is by technical assistance and education that we can seek to overcome these problems and eradicate poverty and ignorance in the under-developed countries. Much has been done. I have already pointed out that over £10,000 million has been spent in economic aid from the developed countries to the under-developed countries, and in directing attention to the work of our own Department of Technical Co-operation I should like to pay a tribute to the splendid work which has been done by that Department. However, I am not satisfied that this constitutes the best form of organisation for dealing with the problem of aid to under-developed countries.

I put a Question to the Prime Minister the other day on this point, and in his reply he suggested that other Departments, such as the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office play a part in the work of this country in promoting aid to under-developed countries. Surely there is a strong case for one Department to co-ordinate all this work.

The primary responsibility of the Minister's Department is to promote technical co-operation. In my view, that is not sufficient. Technical assistance, unless harnessed to financial assistance and trained and experienced manpower, is only one side of the coin. It must be accompanied by financial assistance, and this financial assistance must be backed by technical and administrative co-operation.

I am supported in this view by the Department itself, and I will quote, if I may, from last year's progress report of the Department. It said: There is also a need to co-ordinate technical and financial help, men and money. 854 These two kinds of aid are complementary. It is useless far the most expert adviser in the world to examine a country's problems and recommend ways of solving them if the country has not got the money to put the advice into effect. It is interesting to note that the United States Government take a different view from that taken by Her Majesty's Government, because they have established an agency for international development with full responsibility for all aspects of international aid. This American organisation is based on two principles. First, the starting point of assistance is the formulation by each country of a national development plan of priorities. The second principle is that all the means of aid must he used in a co-ordinated fashion to facilitate the carrying out of that national plan. Moreover, the agency is organised along geographic lines on the basis of four areas of the under-developed world.

The agency also has three main functions; first, the formulation of aid programmes for the respective countries; secondly, the implementation of these programmes, and, thirdly, the provision of expert advice and of administrative and support services. It seems to me that the Government will inevitably be driven to the adoption of some form of organisation on the lines of the American system. But what concerns me, and, I would hope, the Minister—perhaps it is a little early to expect him to formulate any ideas on a proposal of this kind—is that I do not believe we can afford to delay these changes. I should like to see the Government consider them as a matter of urgency, and I hope that the Minister will at least tell us, when he replies to the debate, that the Government are not closing their minds to this possible alternative system and that it will receive their urgent consideration.

Finally, I wish to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) said when introducing the debate, especially on the need for some kind of Peace Corps. We read in our newspapers that on leaving school hundreds of youths find that there is no place for them in industry. Many of them are of the calibre that could be utilised in this great human crusade, and I believe that it would be in the interest not only of our country but of these young men and women themselves if we 855 could build up this great national organisation on the lines that have been established in America. I do not know whether such a service should be called a "Crusade" or "International Service", as distinct from what we used to call National Service. I cannot think that there is any greater attraction to young men than to go into an International Service of this kind, just as it was their privilege to go into National Service when that was necessary.

The world, as we know, is faced with this great challenge. It is a challenge which we cannot ignore, and the very basis of our freedom and of our democracy depends on social and economic justice being given to all the peoples of the world irrespective of race, creed, colour or religion. In this, I believe that our country has a vital part to play, and I wish the Minister well in the responsibilities that lie ahead.

§ Mr. Marcus Worsley (Keighley)

The right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) mentioned at the beginning of his speech the question which has run through many speeches made from both sides of the House today, the question of population. I must say that I could not support the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he said—I think that I am quoting him correctly—that he was not disturbed by the prospective increase. He quoted the figure of 10,000 million people as the possible population that the world could support. I must say that I feel the emphasis here is wrong, if I may say so with respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

It seems to me that we shall fail in the rest of this century to get any measurable increase in the living standards of the under-developed countries unless there is restraint on population.

§ Mr. A. Henderson

Perhaps I was not too clear in what I said, but I have preceded my reference to Dr. Ewell, who is the American expert who referred to the possibility of the world being able to maintain a population of 10,000 million, by saying that I thought it essential that we should not ignore, and that the Churches of the world should 856 not ignore, the need for some form of family planning. I also referred to the action taken by the Parliament of India.

§ Mr. Worsley

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was the phrase about population explosion which he used of which I was rather critical, and I am grateful for his intervention on the point.

It is right that this matter of the population explosion and the two problems it raises—that of birth control and agriculture—should take precedence in this debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) both stressed that the first priority should go to agriculture. I support this view, but I welcome the initiative that is currently being taken by the World Health Organisation in birth control.

The history of prophecy on the question of population shows—and this is of some consolation to me—that the prophets have always been wrong. They have, for example, been wrong about the population movements in this country since the war and this, more than anything else, has upset our planning. Malthus gave perfectly legitimate prophecies based on the figures of his time, but they were proved to be totally wrong. There is some consolation in this, but it ill behoves anyone to oppose the greater spread of birth control methods throughout the world; although I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Llanelly, who said that it must be a matter for countries and individuals to decide for themselves.

I welcome both the Motion and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) will reply to the debate. This is largely a debate on his Department, but during my remarks I shall refer briefly to matters outside his Department, because the Motion includes the subject of trading policies; and any amount of technical aid will be of no avail unless our trading policies are right.

A couple of years ago, when my right hon. Friend's Department was created, my first reaction was slightly that of dismay. One sees so many reports on various matters ending with the recommendation of the establishment of a new Government Department. One often 857 sees, as the writers of these reports become more ambitious, the suggestion that they should be headed by senior Cabinet Ministers. When the Department of Technical Co-operation was created I wondered whether it was not one of these seemingly easy solutions which would not provide the real solution, for what is needed is not more but fewer Government Departments. However, I am now quite persuaded that I was wrong on that subject.

Although the title of my right hon. Friend's Department is not exactly inspiring—and its initials sound rather like the result of a long life of alcoholism—the work it does is exceedingly inspiring and it is right that it should be the province of a separate Department. I wish my right hon. Friend well. If anyone had doubts about the necessity of a separate Department to do the work of this one, his doubts would have been resolved by the first Report that it produced. It showed how much was being done and how immense were the opportunities. Naturally, it being the first Report, it was largely devoted to asking a lot of questions. It reported the setting up of a large number of committees to discuss certain aspects.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will see fit, before too long, to let us have another comprehensive report on the work of his Department. There were so many things in the first one that needed following up and more information to be given that many of us are anxious to have a new report. Unfortunately, the Department is not yet anything like widely enough known in the country, although the work it does is of deep concern to people generally.

There is a deep strain of idealism in Britain which demands an expression outside this country. I have no doubt that this idealism has a Christian basis, but however ardent a churchman I or anyone else may be, we should not say that it is only within the Church. In its outward looking, overseas form, this idealism must be the result of our long responsibilities and involvement overseas. It is certainly not linked to any part of the political spectrum, or—and I echo the words of the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice)—to any income group. It is not limited, despite what is sometimes said, to any age group.

858 One of the current nonsenses is to attribute to youth all the virtues and to age all the vices. I do not believe it. I readily accept that, in this sphere, youth has a special part to play because of its lack of personal responsibilities and ability to go abroad, but the idealism in this is not confined to that group. I am not sure, but there may be more idealism from the middle-aged housewife with children than any other section of the community.

It is this strain of idealism which, above all, makes one proud to be a citizen of this country. When Britain sits on its little island, and looks inward at itself, it is at its worst. When we look overseas, and accept the challenge from abroad, we do our best. We have seen that, even the youngest of us, markedly in our lifetime. This strong strain of idealism often goes into channels which, I believe, are misguided. Much of the unilateralist agitation is misguided, although I recognise that there i