U.N.I.C.E.F. (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION) (Hansard, 7 February 1955)

§ Mr. Kenneth Younger (Grimsby)
I rise to make a plea for the United Nations Children's Fund, which is commonly known as U.N.I.C.E.F. I shall ask for more consideration for its needs. In particular I shall ask for a United Kingdom Government contribution which will be more in line with the proportion we observe in our contributions to other organisations, especially those connected with the United Nations.
This Fund is one of a relatively small number of international organisations for which no regular assessment is made upon the contributors. It depends on a fresh voluntary pledge being made each year by each contributor, and that inevitably creates a great deal of uncertainty for it in planning ahead, as anybody can see who will look at the graph of the United Kingdom contributions over the past few years, which have a positively Himalayan appearance.
I would freely acknowledge that the highest peak of the Himalayas would come in 1954, because in 1954 the United Kingdom contribution was double that of 1953, which, in its turn, had been double that of 1952. These percentages and the multiplication factors are rather deceptive because they did start from low levels in 1951 and 1952.
My concern tonight is not to refer very much to the past nor to recriminate about it, but to consider what are the reasonable current needs of this Fund, and to argue that unless the United Kingdom is prepared to do something more it is unlikely that these needs can be met from any other source. I want further to argue that a pretty substantial increase in the United Kingdom contributions would still do no more than put the United Nations Children's Fund in a reasonable position in the table of contributions which this country makes to United Nations Bodies.
I do not think I need spend very much time in singing the praises of the United 1700 Nations Children's Fund as an organisation. The purpose—to help children all over the world—is one which gains universal sympathy, and quite apart from that, I think it is recognised as perhaps the finest type of long-term investment for progress in backward territories. I believe moreover that U.N.I.C.E.F. has a record of effectiveness and of administrative economy which very few international organisations can match and probably none can surpass.
Indeed, there have been few more eloquent tributes than that paid to it in the speech of Mrs. Walter Elliot, who was the United Kingdom representative on the Third Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations last November. If the Joint Under-Secretary of State, in replying, were to be rash enough to try to engage in any criticism of the operations of the Fund—which I do not anticipate—I could throw back in his teeth an appropriate quotation on almost any point from Mrs. Elliot's speech, a copy of which I have taken the precaution of having with me.
I am well aware that there are many other international organisations all more or less deserving and all more or less expanding, to which this country contributes, and it is very hard for Her Majesty's Government to decide what is a satisfactory level of contribution in respect of each of these bodies. But I feel that I am on safe ground in saying that the United Nations Children's Fund has ambitions which are exceedingly reasonable. For a year or two past it has aimed at a constant figure of 20 million dollars for its total budget.
That has, of course, not been based on the total need of all the children throughout the world, which would be almost unlimited, but upon the assessment of the requests which it receives from different countries and which it considers to be really high priorities, coupled—and this is very important—with the amount which the Fund thinks these recipient countries can fairly readily match, because, as the Joint Under-Secretary knows, it is one of the principles of the Fund that a contribution which is made by the Fund to a country has to be matched by that country's own contribution from its local resources.
I do not think that the Fund has ever, in fact, got nearer to the 20 million 1701 dollar target than 15 to 16 million dollars, and if it is remembered that hat has to be split up among 80 countries, and that some 30 million children throughout the world have actually been reached in one way or another by the Fund, it will be seen that a total of 20 million dollars, which in some connections is very big, is in this particular connection exceedingly modest. Moreover, inevitably, requests are increasing all the time.
I am told that the target has only been kept within the 20 million dollar figure this year by reducing the provision which is normally put aside for emergencies. This, I am glad to say, was a point particularly stressed by Mrs. Elliot, who congratulated the Fund on its work in connection with various flood and other disasters in different parts of the world. She expressed the view that the Fund should always be provided with sufficient resources to deal with these emergencies, whereas, in fact, think the allocation for such emergencies in the plans of the Fund this year has had to be reduced by about 11 per cent.
For those reasons I think it is very important that the 20 million dollar target—or something approaching it—should be attained. Where is it to come from? In the past the United States has borne by far the greatest burden. Indeed, it has agreed that for every hundred units of contribution it is prepared to put up 72 if the whole of the rest of the world will put up 28 units. No one can say that that is not a generous undertaking.
But for 1954 and for the future, the United States has intimated that, while she does not intend necessarily to be less generous in the total she will give, she now makes her contributions dependent upon a somewhat less favourable proportion—60 to 40 instead of 72 to 28. I do not think that anyone could dispute that this is entirely reasonable, but, of course, it means that if the same total is to be reached as before, let alone a still larger one, more must come from non-United States sources.
I believe that for 1954 the funds necessary from countries other than the United States to match the maximum United States contribution had, not been secured by the end of the year, but another two months' grace have been allowed. The last figures I was able to get showed that the total of contributions 1702 from other countries was still about a million dollars short of what would be necessary to attract the full United States contribution.
I am also told that in the coming year there is some reason to hope that the United States will be ready to contribute enough to enable this total target of 20 million dollars to be reached on the 60 to 40 basis. That, of course, would mean that if other nations are prepared to contribute a total of eight million dollars the United States might be prepared to put up 12 million—a total of 20 million. Every dollar by which the rest of the countries other than the United States fall short of the eight million will not only be one dollar less, but will also cause a reduction in the United States contribution.
I think it is right to say that the countries other than the United States have never in the past managed to muster a total of more than about five million dollars; therefore, we are looking for an addition of three million dollars more from countries other than the United States if the target is to be reached. I do not think that this can be expected to come from the recipient countries because they are all, by definition, poor. In any case, as I have said, they are always required to match from their local funds anything they receive, and they have considerable difficulty in doing that. I am told that, on an average over the whole life of the Fund, the matching has been in the ratio of 1½ dollars for every dollar coming from the Fund, which seems to be fairly satisfactory.
The additional sum must, therefore, come from the relatively limited number of economically more powerful countries. If one looks amongst such countries—the Commonwealth particularly, and Western Europe—and compares their contribution to see who might be expected to do more, the finger points inexorably at us. Assessing relative ability to pay is always an uncertain business. There is the national income per head and all sorts of other tests, no one of which is, by itself, valid.
Even taken together the tests cannot be considered wholly accurate. Nevertheless, if all the tests point in one direction they cannot be ignored, and in fact Her Majesty's Government do, broadly, accept the results of such tests in agreeing to their contributions to a large number of 1703 bodies, for which an impartial assessment is made each year. The fact is that by any of these tests the United Kingdom contribution to U.N.I.C.E.F.—even at its present level of £200,000 a year—does not look very good.
As a proportion of the total U.N.I.C.E.F. budget, as we were told only today, in figures which were given earlier, it will come to about 4.32 per cent., and in a long list of United Nations bodies to which we contribute, only the Universal Postal Union gets a smaller proportionate contribution from us. I do not know why the Union receives a small proportionate contribution. It may be because a larger number of countries subscribe to the Universal Postal Union and, therefore, the percentage of any individual country's contribution will be proportionately smaller.
If we compare the proportion with that for technical assistance, we find that in that case the proportion is 7.28 per cent. For the regular budget of the United Nations it is 9.8 per cent. For a variety of Specialised Agencies the figures vary from 6 to 11 per cent., all of them very much larger than the proportion for U.N.I.C.E.F. I think we can leave out of account for this purpose the very special cases of the Korean Agency and the Agency for the Relief of Arab Refugees.
By the test of comparative ability to pay—take, for instance, the burden per capita—we are still well down the list of European countries, and we are even less favourably placed when compared with some of the other members of the Commonwealth. On the basis of proportion of national income our position looks rather better now that we are subscribing £200,000, but even so we cannot claim that our position is very distinguished, and there are certain comparatively small countries in Europe whose records are better than ours.
If we are sincere in our praise of U.N.I.C.E.F.—and all hon. Members on all sides of the House always praise it—and if we regard a 20 million dollar target as not excessive and one which should be reached, I think it is inescapable that our contribution of £200,000 is not our fair share of a burden which ought to be borne, and that it must be increased if the Fund is not to be crippled. I would add 1704 that I think the British example in this matter has a considerable effect upon the willingness of other countries to increase their contributions.
I want to make a final point which is designed to parry an anticipated and quite truthful comment which the Joint Under-Secretary may make—namely, that we have great responsibilities outside the United Nations and particularly to our dependent territories. This, of course, is true, but I think it is not a very strong argument for limiting support for this Fund, because U.N.I.C.E.F.'s contribution to our dependent territories is immense. I believe it has been about 2.9 million dollars from its inception to last September.
Even if we count in all the U.N.R.R.A. residual funds, our total contribution comes to only 3.6 million dollars or about that, so in our dependent territories we have had back almost everything that we have subscribed over this long period. As for last year, I saw an article by Percy Cudlipp in the "News Chronicle" last month which was rather rudely entitled "Sponging on these children," in which the writer said—and I have no reason to doubt that he is correct—that whereas we contributed £200,000 in 1954, in fact £300,000 was spent on children in our dependent territories, and entirely spent on purchases made in Britain.
It is, therefore, very doubtful whether our contribution to this Fund has been a net burden to the country at all. We ought to regard it both as an economical way of contributing to colonial development—economical because others match every dollar we give—and as an international duty which I believe the people of this country are very willing to support.
I therefore ask the Joint Under-Secretary to press the claim of this Fund with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, basing his case, first, on grounds of humanitarian feeling, second, on our international responsibility, and if, as often happens, the Chancellor remains adamant in the face of such arguments, then as sheer good business for this country and her Colonies.

§ Mr. Nigel Nicolson (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)
Before my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary replies, I should like in two minutes to echo from these back benches the reasonable 1705 plea which the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has made. Ultimately, the contributions by our Government to international agencies must depend on our own public opinion, and there is no question that of all the international agencies under the United Nations, it is U.N.I.C.E.F. which has attracted most sympathy from the ordinary citizen. One proof of this has been the remarkable success which the United Nations Association has had in raising for U.N.I.C.E.F. in every town and county of this land a considerable sum from the private pockets of the people.
I will advance only one further argument in addition to what the right hon. Gentleman said. U.N.I.C.E.F., like all the other Agencies, is one which is gaining momentum as it gains experience; and as it gains momentum, obviously its budget should be increased to meet the extra commitments which are becoming due. In the last four years, taking the budget as a whole, there has been no such parallel increase in its revenues.
In 1951, it spent 16½ million dollars, and in 1954, 16.8 million dollars, or practically no difference. If the target of 20 million dollars, which is a very reasonable one, is to be met, it must be met partly, at least, from this country. We are contributing at present £200,000, or precisely the sum which is being raised by tonight's Purchase Tax Order relating to attachments for push bikes; so we are virtually getting the contribution for nothing. I support what the right hon. Member for Grimsby has said, and I ask my hon. Friend whether he can increase our contribution when the time for it next comes round.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope)
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger), who raised this subject, did so fairly and constructively, and I am grateful to him for that. He said at the outset that he would not speak in terms of recrimination, and he did not. I shall not speak in terms of recrimination either.
The right hon. Gentleman sang the praises of the Children's Fund. He told us that the Fund had an unsurpassed record of administrative success. I endorse wholeheartedly everything he said about what the Fund has done, and I 1706 assure him that he has no need, as far as I or the Government are concerned, to keep any of Mrs. Elliot's thunderbolts in reserve. They will not be needed.
It is very easy to take something of this kind in isolation and to give figures which in themselves are perfectly accurate but to make from those figures a deduction that is not always fair, because it leaves something out in the total account and story. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has done, and what all those, in the House and in the Press, who feel critical about our views have done a little too often. One does not get angry about that, but nevertheless it is a pity that when criticism of this sort is made, it does not seem, in most cases, to take account of so many other sources of help to exactly the same end as that which the Children's Fund has in view.
It is not a debating point to claim that any cause which helps to raise the standard of living of people in undeveloped areas of the world directly helps the luckless children of the world; every such scheme must do that. Therefore, our contribution to several such schemes must be taken into account when our record is under review. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two of these other funds, such as the Korean fund and the Arab refugee fund. He said, "I think that we can leave out these other funds," or words to that effect. I think that we should not leave them out and that, for the record, we should include the very considerable sums which we have contributed towards those funds.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned our contribution to the fund which provides technical assistance. That is a very big figure, and our place in the race against our competitors in that field is a very high one. I agree that if one takes the Children's Fund alone one can produce a statistical argument to show that we are a long way down the field, but that is really only half the story.
It is true that our percentage contribution could not be made to look very large in the case of this Children's Fund although it is fair to say that it would be larger than the right hon. Gentleman makes it if only he were to take into account the amazingly encouraging amount of money which has been raised 1707 for it in this country by voluntary effort. The Government, of course, take no credit for that, though it must be taken into consideration as part of the sum which this country has given to the Fund. It is a remarkable example of generosity on the part of the public.

§ Mr. Younger
I hope that the noble Lord will not argue that the greater the voluntary enthusiasm in this country the less Her Majesty's Government will contribute.

§ Lord John Hope
No, of course not. I will not argue anything of the sort. I had to run the risk of the right hon. Gentleman catching me out on that point when I mentioned the figure, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways, and neither can I.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the amount that has been spent by the Fund in the dependent territories. Too many people who criticise us on this point—and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is among them—do not take into account the extent to which the Governments who are receiving the aid have matched U.N.I.C.E.F. allocations from their own resources.
The Executive Board's Report for September, 1954, states: A more complete picture of the total effort going into these programmes would also include the matching expenditure of Governments. In the past, for every dollar provided by U.N.I.C.E.F. assisted Governments have on the average contributed 1.57 dollars. There is an encouraging example of a matching contribution being provided by one of our Colonies. Nigeria is providing the sum of £1,231,500 towards the cost 1708 of a five-year scheme to deal with leprosy, which was started in 1953, and to which U.N.I.C.E.F. and W.H.O. are contributing £98,750.
Moreover the matching contributions put up by our Colonial Territories are in part financed by the colonial development and welfare funds which are, of course, a direct charge on the Exchequer of this country. Therefore, it is fair to claim that the £200,000 direct contribution of the United Kingdom to U.N.I.C.E.F. is not the whole story. It was right and fair of the right hon. Gentleman to mention the U.N.R.R.A. residual assets. They also are conveniently forgotten by some of our critics.
By and large, I do not think it is saying too much when we claim that the story of this country ever since the inception of this Fund is a good one. One says that without in the least feeling complacent about it, and, moreover, without wishing to give the impression to the right hon. Gentleman, or to the House that the last word has necessarily been said so far as the future is concerned. Naturally, the Government have to take into consideration every factor that is connected with the expenditure of money by this country, but I say to the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government will carefully examine the possibility of an increase in 1956 in the light of the available financial resources of this country and our many international commitments.