5:403/15
ZAVIXA
From the secretary of State for the "olonies,
To the offieor ministering the Dovorneens of INNG SONKI,
DAYS
September, 1981.
6 869. SAVIND.
Your Ref: Sect. file 23/
/80.
65
Your priority saving No. 972 of the 23rd August, 1951.
Yertiliser factory.
History of negotiations with Brunt since receipt of your telegram No. 7:0 is mmmarised in personal and confidential letter from Mr. Hall to F.P.4. Fo. 54403/15/51 of the 2nd August. This letter was written because it was aaMRIOČ that the P.P.D, could be connerned with Brunt's proposals, which seemed of acme magnitude.
2.
Position now is as follows:-
(a) since returning to United Kingdon Brant has apparently
done nothing to implement instructions in your telegram No. 790. Infeed be has stated that he la unable to do so without assistance.
(b) Instead, he has spent his time allying himself with
the firm ar Brion Colquhoun and Partners, whom, bo considers, dan best supply him with the help he needs.
(c) He has now informed my advisers of the teras on which he is prepared to praduos plans and estimates for the project. I enclose a copy of this letter and of a letter from Brian Colquhoun and ïartners to armat
3m showing the conditions on which they are prepared to allow Drunt to associate himself with them. You will see tist runt proposes much detailed work, for whiOH he expecte a fee between 3,000 and 5,000 guineas.
3. Crown gente have been ecnsulted and bare alɛo examined Brunt's preliminary report, which he recently ande available sere. This report acqua very sketchy and full of lacunae, but, assuming that Brunt's scheme is practicable and is designed to use well tried principles which will not need mach preliminary experimentation, it would seem that the complicated and detailed plarming thet Brunt propones to do is Uscendary at this stage. Indeed, it would neem that if Brent in fsat mows his job, he should be in a position to "elaborate the schere so far as is absolutely necessary for consideration as a Colonial Development and "elfare project" without much further work. As the me time it is obvious that he is not willing to do so on the terms stated in Mr. Barnett's letter to him No. 33/641/50 of the 19th June, 1991.