HC Deb 08 November 1954 vol 532 cc835-7
22. Mr. Beswick

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much is the United Kingdom share of the estimated initial capital sum of $250 million proposed by the Committee of Nine who drew up the report on a Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development.

Mr. Turton

The Committee of Nine experts considered that contributions to the proposed fund should be voluntary. Should Her Majesty's Government decide to participate in such a fund, it would be for them to determine at that time the amount of this country's contribution, subject to Parliamentary approval.

Mr. Beswick

Is it not the fact that we originally refused to enter this fund because we could not afford it? How can we say that we cannot afford it until we have some idea of what we shall be called upon to contribute?

Mr. Turton

I think the answer which I am going to give to the next Question will clarify the hon. Member's doubt.

23. Mr. Beswick

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the United Kingdom representative did not support the 20-nation draft joint resolution of 22nd October on the establishment of the Special United Nations Fund for Economic Development in his speech to the Second Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation.

Mr. Turton

The draft resolution involves positive steps to establish a fund. Her Majesty's Government consider such steps premature before sufficient financial support is forthcoming. These reasons were fully explained in the speech of the United Kingdom delegate on 25th October.

Mr. Beswick

Does this mean that we refuse to make an estimate of our contribution because we are waiting to know what definite steps will be taken, and that we are not going to take any definite steps because we do not know how much they are going to cost? Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question? Does he not think that the kind of contribution we shall be called upon to make to this fund will yield more security than any of the military pacts his right hon. Friend has recently been concluding?

Mr. Turton

The view of the Government is that while we have existing commitments for both defence and economic expenditure it would be unwise for us to make a contribution to this fund. At the present time, the House will recollect, this country, under the Colombo Plan and also for colonial development schemes, is committed to spending large sums of money to help the development of these under-developed countries.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Does not Article II of the S.E.A.T.O. Agreement make it quite plain that this kind of economic development of expenditure is defence expenditure in the strictest sense of the term? If that Article is not to be a dead letter, something more must be done. Should not the Government reconsider whether they can make a contribution to this fund?

Mr. Turton

I entirely agree. The question is how we are to do it. We shall be discussing the position under Article III of the S.E.A.T.O. agreement later tonight.

Mr. H. Wilson

Is it a fact, as certain reports suggest, that our delegate, speaking on this question of further funds, said that the Government preferred to strengthen the technical assistance programme instead? Does that mean that the Government are now going to restore the cut that was made in the contribution to technical assistance, in view of the fact that the technical assistance programme looks like fading out altogether?

Mr. Turton

There has not been a cut, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but if he will put that Question down I will deal with it. I will also, if the right hon. Gentleman likes, let him have a copy of the speech of Sir Alec Randall.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Is not one of the troubles about these funds the fact that when the funds are spent the recipients do not know who are their friends and who are providing for them?