§ 17. Sir R. Aclandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the recent report of the Chairman of the United Nations Technical Assistance Board showing that requests received from member governments for assistance will require an increase in income from approximately $18,000,000 in 1952 to $25,000,000 in 1953; and, as the United Kingdom was, with Australia, the only important country making a notable reduction in contribution in 1952 and now contributes less in proportion to income than any comparable country, if he will give an assurance that the United Kingdom contribution in 1953 will be substantially raised.
§ Mr. NuttingHer Majesty's Government are giving the United Nations expanded programme of technical assistance the fullest possible support. While I do not, therefore, accept the implications of the hon. Member's Question, I cannot at present anticipate next year's Estimates.
§ Sir R. AclandWhen extra expenditure is required for this international work and when we are contributing less than any 13 other comparable country in relation to our income, is it conceivable that Her Majesty's Government will not increase their contribution?
§ Mr. NuttingI cannot accept the implications of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question—
§ Sir R. AclandIt is a fact.
§ Mr. Nutting—any more than I can accept those of his original Question. The United States, France, Canada and Australia have all had to reduce their contributions to this extended Technical Assistance Programme. As for our total contributions to the specialised agencies, I have often said in the House that Her Majesty's Government are second in total contributions only to the United States and, per head of the population, are the leading country.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerSince an increase in the world production of food and raw materials might be a major factor in improving our own long-term balance of payments position, and since the United Nations Technical Assistance Board are achieving considerable results, would not an increased subscription be a very wise investment?
§ Mr. NuttingI accept the premise on which the right hon. Gentleman put his question, but I do not think he would expect me at this stage to anticipate next year's Estimates or the contribution which Her Majesty's Government will be able to make.
§ Mrs. CastleIs the hon. Gentleman aware that when we reduced our contribution last year the reason given by the Government was that it had not been possible to spend the money already voted. That has now been proved to be a fallacy and it has been shown that, in fact, they needed to spend more. The argument for a reduction last year will therefore not apply next year.
§ Mr. NuttingIt may be that the argument for a reduction this year may not apply next year, but when we reduced our contribution—and let me add that it was reduced by only 10 per cent.—together with the other States I have already listed, we were under the impression that the total contributions would not be required.
§ Sir R. AclandAs there is a dispute of fact between us, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter when there is more time to discuss it.