HC Deb 27 January 1970 vol 794 cc1425-35

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Frank Judd (Portsmouth, West)

The Government recently declared their commitment to increased expenditure on overseas aid and development. In recent weeks, debate has been concerned with the adequacy of the scale which they envisage. Tonight, towards the end of the First Development Decade, and in the light of Sir Robert Jackson's far-reaching Report on the United Nations, I wish to review the work of the multilateral agencies which the Government have declared to be an increasingly important channel for their action.

Candidly, there is little undiluted enthusiasm for the multilateral agencies, and, perhaps, especially for the specialised agencies, of the United Nations. Attitudes range from downright hostility to cautious ambivalence. Even the most fervent United Nations lobbyists have moments of doubt. Much of the criticism is unjustified, but there is enough which is sufficiently valid to demand attention.

Many of the criticisms centre on the administration of individual agencies. They are accused of being top-heavy and more concerned with empire building at headquarters than with efficient work in the field. While in some respects this is true, there are explanations which cannot be ignored. For example, the International Labour Office, which celebrated its 50th anniversary last year but whose origins go back well into the last century, was never intended to be primarily an operational organisation. Its function has been research, evaluation and guidance for member States, which were expected to take action themselves.

The much-maligned U.N.E.S.C.O., when originally established after the Second World War, did not have development as its prior obligation. Its bias was intentionally academic. With a number of the other United Nations agencies, it is not always certain how far, in their early years, they were intended to have their own direct programmes and how far their purpose was consultation and coordination.

Be that as it may, there are few United Nations agencies today, even of the most technical character—for example, the Universal Postage Union, the World Meteorological Organisation, the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—which do not now pride themselves on their own development operations, small though they may seem, and these, obviously, cannot escape analysis in terms of cost-effectiveness.

There is no doubt that United Nations operations are relatively expensive. Some will argue that what is wrong is the absence of Treasury control, and that the agencies are cushioned from the economic difficulties of individual countries which constantly compel Government Departments to prune their administrative machine. This argument claims that the imposition of a nil increase in the budget of a United Nations agency is almost unthinkable.

Also, there are grave personnel problems. These include political pressure surrounding senior appointments and a shortage of sufficiently well qualified people both for headquarters and for field work. There is at present a particularly acute shortage of really first-class economists.

Criticisms of policy are equally forthcoming. A fundamental principle in the work of all United Nations agencies is that they are supposed only to respond to requests for assistance. This means that their activities can be dissipated over a wide area, with minimum effect. It means, also, that those Governments which are good at requesting assistance in the acceptable form and jargon are likely to receive priority attention, whether or not, by absolute standards, they really deserve it. It means that some agencies become passive, failing to develop an organisational ideology. One of the newest, the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, is an example of just that.

If some agencies become passive, others become too remote in their concern with global strategy. In the past, the F.A.O., in its preoccupation with an Indicative World Plan, has been slow to promote the more immediate cause of balanced regional development. In fairness, we should recognise the problem which it faces in this respect. Individual developing countries frequently fail to recognise the inherent value for themselves in regional policies. They compete for special attention instead of co-operating.

U.N.E.S.C.O. is open to the same sort of objection. With between 750 million and 1.000 million illiterates in the world, a World Literacy Campaign makes sense; but there is little point in preparing a world-wide master plan unless the regional and local structures for implementation are there.

The reservations about I.L.O. are different. It has a distinguished record of specific and precise deliberation. However, with attitudes to industrial relations transformed, it is arguable that when it was brought into the U.N. family in 1945 an opportunity was missed to reconstitute it as a new organisation with a wider purpose, covering economic and social affairs and incorporating the work of what is now known as the Economic and Social Council of the U.N.

The World Health Organisation, with its regional centres in Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Americas, South-East Asia, Europe and the Western Pacific, has introduced a degree of decentralisation which could be envied by other agencies. There is some argument about the statistical accuracy of W.H.O.'s claims about malaria and smallpox control, but about its bias there can be little argument. The affluent members of W.H.O. regard it as a "doing agency", with a limited amount of research coordination. They do not see its function as regional research. Apart from the three reference centres in the United States, Britain and New Delhi, it has been spending a mere 75,000 dollars a year on contract research—enough to support three and a quarter biological research workers.

So firm is the line against research by W.H.O. that Martin Kaplan's plan for a world health research centre was rejected. This would have been able to redress the world balance in research, for whereas the affluent nations are primarily concerned with degenerative diseases, it could have concentrated on communicable diseases—the priority of the developing countries. This negative decision contrasts dramatically with the French proposal for a cancer agency with an income of over 1 million dollars a year, and, despite the views expressed at the time of the decision, a fully fledged basic research programme. Behind all the respectable facade of W.H.O. is the probability that it is not free from manipulation by the rich for the rich.

Slowly the realisation has dawned that aid and technical assistance make little sense unless world trading patterns are reorganised to remove the disadvantages suffered by the developing world. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development was seen as the great hope here. Two years after the second session of U.N.C.T.A.D., the worst misgivings seem to be confirmed. The will for radical change is lacking among the privileged minority. They have indulged in debate among themselves on the comparative advantages of "organisations des marches", as supported by the French, and supplementary finance, as favoured by ourselves and Sweden.

The developing countries for their part, after all the hopes of the Group of 77, failed to act decisively as a group. One observer has said: The 77 will unite to vote on generalities, but they negotiate for their own particular interests. This may be unavoidable when different developing countries are at different stages of industrialisation, and when some developing countries are consumers and others producers of particular commodities, but it is no less disappointing for that.

It is against this background that we must study the findings of Sir Robert Jackson. He condemns the proliferation of specialised agencies, and demonstrates that they are guilty of empire-building and of far too little co-ordination. He confirms the suspicion of many observers that they tend to be administratively top-heavy, with too much of their resources going into remote headquarters and too little into really effective work in the field. He argues that good members of staff, of whom there are plenty, have become disillusioned and frustrated, and that be-because of their imperfections the agencies are not attracting new personnel of sufficiently high calibre. Conditions of service and long-term career prospects must be improved, and the restrictive, counter-productive commitment to national quota systems and political lobbying in staff appointments must be reviewed.

While recognising the politically less representative nature of the World Bank and the International Development Organisation, both only loosely related to the United Nations, he contrasts their effectiveness with the tortuous and cumbersome operation of the U.N. agencies themselves. He details the interminable time between the conception of a U.N. project and the implementation, frequently several years, and points out that by the time it starts it may no longer be relevant in its original form. He goes on to suggest that even once it has begun it is liable to be badly handled, and that second phase projects are too often not the logical extension of a successful first-stage but an attempt to put right the mistakes of the first attempt.

There is a desperate need not so much for administrative theories on project evaluation but for experts of the right ability to do it effectively. Referring to what he calls …the great inertia of this elaborate administrative structure … and to the lack of firm overall control, he describes how … below headquarters, the administrative tentacles thrust downwards into an extraordinary complex of regional and sub-regional offices". He continues: The machine as a whole has become unmanageable in the strictest use of the word. As a result, it is becoming slower and more unwieldly, like some prehistoric monster". Sir Robert is no defeatist. His essential determination and faith shine through the report—the world is interdependent; we live or die together; we must hammer out effective international institutions together. He looks at the vastly expensive and technologically sophisticated arms race and declares: Never before has mankind destroyed so much of its inheritance so quickly. We still have time to do the most constructive job in the history of the world". To do this job we must face the facts. We cannot conveniently overlook the mistakes of the past. He recommends a greatly strengthened United Nations Development Programme which should be given the financial resources and power to control and co-ordinate the activities of the various U.N. agencies in what he calls … a United Nations Development Corporation cycle". He asks us to remember that the objective of development is demonstrable progress in individual developing countries. Thus, the U.N. programme should be decentralised on a country by country basis, with key liaison between agencies and the government concerned, handled by a U.N. resident representative with overall responsibility for U.N. operations. The present pattern of sometimes competing representatives from individual agencies should be eliminated. It is worth noting that, on this, some experts are already arguing that the coordination should be on a regional rather than on a national basis.

To support this new structure, Sir Robert favours the creation of a streamlined information system designed speedily to supply technical, economic and social information wherever it is needed and to keep each part of the operation in touch with what the other parts are doing. Within this framework for action, the report believes that the U.N.'s priorities should be in the pre-investment and technical assistant spheres.

Sir Robert Jackson demonstrates that there is no room for despair. It would be absurd to ditch the international approach simply because of its inadequacies to date. By comparison, the machinery of national government hardly dazzles with effectiveness. To retreat exclusively into regional multi-lateral exercises would have unfortunate political consequences for international relations as a whole. Of course, the world is interdependent, both economically and strategically, and the sooner our policies reflect this the better.

It was President Kennedy who, in his inaugural address, referred to the U.N. as "our last best hope" and went on: … in an age where the instruments of war far outpace the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run". Today 90 per cent. of the men and women working for U.N. organisations are engaged on tasks concerned with economic and social affairs. More than 80 per cent. of the money spent by the U.N. is devoted to projects intended to raise living standards, particularly in the "third" world.

If the shortcomings are to be overcome, we politicians must accept our direct responsibility. It is easy to criticise, but how many who do so recognise the degree of self-criticism in which they are indulging? How many legislators know the precise titles of the principal U.N. agencies, let alone have any detailed knowledge of their policies and work?

Who are the faceless men who speak on our behalf at meetings of the governing bodies? What constructive thought goes on in the legislatures of Member countries about the scope and priorities of the agencies? How often is the mandate to our delegations a general "For heavens' sake, keep the budget increase down", and little else besides? What real guidance do we give, or are equipped to give, to the technocrats of the permanent staffs?

It cannot be too frequently repeated that the U.N. and its agencies have no basis except in their membership. We in this House are part of the United Nations. It behoves Her Majesty's Government, committed as they are to the U.N. and development, to publish in an early White Paper their comments on Sir Robert Jackson's thoughts.

3 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry for Overseas Development (Mr. Ben Whitaker)

We are all, I am sure, extremely grateful—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has intervened in this debate before. He can intervene now only by leave of the House, which he must ask for.

Mr. Whitaker

With the leave of the House, I seek to speak again.

We are all, I am sure, extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) for raising this extremely important subject, albeit at such a late hour. It seems that we must wait to hear the views of the Liberals or any other opposition party on this extremely important subject on some other occasion. I hope that, in addition to the excellent and admirable summary of the report which my hon. Friend gave, hon. Members who are interested in the subject will take the opportunity to read it. A copy has already been placed in the Library of the House.

The report itself comes out at a very opportune time because it is in many senses complementary to the other report which is very crucial in this field, that of the Pearson Commission. Many hon. Members, I know, feel that the United Nations in general is debated far too rarely in our Parliament. As my hon. Friend reminded us, not everyone realises that altogether over 80 per cent. of the United Nations personnel and resources are being devoted quietly day by day to constructive economic and social development, and this is a matter which receives almost no Press or public attention in comparison with the much smaller proportion of the United Nations effort which takes place in political debate.

I would very much like to endorse and welcome what my hon. Friend said in the House on Monday in the debate on Nigeria, that those who are showing such genuine concern about starvation and medical problems in that one sector in Africa will continue their interest and deepen their examination of the problems of a similar nature which are taking place in many parts of the world year in and year out.

I am sure that we are all grateful in this House to Sir Robert Jackson for the work he put into this report and the remarkable speed with which he produced it. I think many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to pay tribute to the work he and his distinguished wife contribute in this field, both of whom are known to many hon. Members in all parts of the House.

The report itself deals with a highly complex system, and its proposals are necessarily very complicated. They involve all the United Nations agencies, and, ipso facto, the very large number of Governments who are members of them. Since the objects directly concerned are international organisations, the directives to which they work have to be the subject of intergovernmental agreement.

So far, the Governing Council of the U.N. Development Programme, which is now in session in New York, has held only a preliminary exchange of provisional views on the subject of the report. The first substantive discussion of the study will be at a special session of the governing council which is scheduled for March this year. At the present stage the views of the British Government on the report are still necessarily only provisional, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister told the House on 22nd January, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), she is hoping to discuss the report in the United States and in Canada next month when she visits there.

We should wish, in formulating our own views, to take into account those of other Governments participating in the U.N. Development System, both of the developed and of the developing world. Since the whole purpose of the U.N. Development System is to help the developing countries, the reaction of those countries to the report's proposals will be of the utmost and most crucial importance. We all agree that it is essential that those in the developing countries should in no way think that the donor countries are forcing a new plan of their own but that there should be broad agreement between the donor and developing countries on the new system.

Mr. Judd

I agree that the Government must take into account the views of the Governments of developing countries and their representatives. Can my lion. Friend assure the House that before the Government irrevocably commit themselves to a particular line on the report they will take into account the considered views of the House?

Mr. Whitaker

Indeed. Everything that my hon. Friend has said will be studied with the close attention with which we study anything that he says on this subject, about which he is extremely knowledgeable. I only wish that other hon. Members had contributed their views, so that we could have learned them as well.

The objective of the British Government should be the urgent consideration of how the system should be reorganised and streamlined so as to increase its capacity and improve the quality of the aid it provides. The initial reaction of the British Government is one of broad agreement with the study's diagnosis, to the effect that the U.N. Development System is at present under strain, but none of the proposals contained in the report is ammunition and argument for those who are dedicated enemies of the United Nations. As my noble Friend Lord Caradon said at another place in the building last week, when my hon. Friend was also present, those who do not like the tune a piano is playing should not in any way be thereby encouraged to abolish music itself.

The achievement, in providing a vast range of technical assistance, of the organisations concerned, most of which were designed for quite different purposes, has been remarkable. Undue emphasis has been placed in some Press reports on the weaknesses in the system disclosed by the report, although articles in the Economist and The Times on 6th and 10th December respectively gave better balanced accounts. Sir Robert Jackson has stated publicly that he considers that 80 per cent. of the United Nation's work in this field is highly competent.

But we agree that if the system as a whole is to grow, as we on this side very much hope that it will, it must be reorganised and streamlined. We in Britain have a considerable stake in this, as our annual voluntary contributions to the U.N.D.S. now amount to over £7 million.

We also agree with the main premise of the study that the object should be to reform the United Nations Development System rather than destroy it, and begin to build again ab initio. We have not yet completed our examination of all the study's 66 recommendations, but, in general, we think that most of them are along the right lines to achieve the objective of making the United Nations development machinery more efficient and increasing its capacity. Not surprisingly, however, we may have to quarrel with one or two of them and suggest modifications of others.

We agree in principle with the recommendation that the United Nations Development System should continue to be pre-eminent in the field of technical assistance, including pre-investment studies, whilst the World Bank Group should have pre-eminence in the field of capital investment. But we are very much in agreement with the study when it says that the closest co-operation between the two systems will be necessary. Indeed, it is vitally important that the issues at stake should not be regarded in any way as a struggle for power or a matter for demarcation disputes between, say, the U.N.D.P. and the specialised agencies or the U.N.D.P. and the I.B.R.D. These bodies are the servants and not the masters of member Governments of the United Nations, and hence it is essential that member Governments speak with the same voice in the governing bodies of the different organisations of which they are members.

To conclude, we do not see the agencies as having a lesser rôle to play if the Jackson recommendations are adopted. We, as members of all the agencies as well as of the U.N.D.P. Governing Council, have an interest in ensuring that all parts of the system have a full rôle to play, and, given increased efficiency, we on this side of the House have on many occasions stated our determination that a higher proportion of our aid programme could and should be devoted to multilateral programmes. But the rate at which we can move in this direction will, to some extent, depend on the speed at which the reforms which we are discussing can be implemented. My hon. Friend will know that we have already increased the proportion of the British programme in the multilateral direction from 10 to 15 per cent., and the implementation of the Jackson Report will obviously be a determining factor in deciding how much faster we can move in the same direction.

I hope that the Jackson Report will be widely read at home and abroad, and not least by hon. Members, and that there will be increased discussion of the extremely important, albeit technical, arguments put forward. Most of all, I hope that early action will be taken on its lessons and that the report will not be put away in a pigeon hole to gather dust but that on such a crucially important subject action will follow very speedily on the production of the report.

Mr. Speaker

I would remind those who have joined this marathon debate that we are about to begin the tenth of 23 debates. So far, 49 hon. Members have spoken because most of them responded to my appeal for brief speeches.