Lords Sitting of 2 July 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

WHITSTABLE HARBOUR BILL
Read 2a, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK (TRANSFER) BILL
Read 2a, and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

CYPRIOTS' EXIT PERMITS
2.37 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why Mr. and Mrs. P. Georghiou have been refused permission to leave Cyprus for a holiday, and why applications for exit permits from Mr. John Christofides and Dr. Phanos have been rejected, as reported in The Times of 27th June, 1957.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, there was a mistake of identity over Mr. and Mrs. P. Georghiou. The name is, I am informed, a common one in Cyprus. As soon as the error was realised, Mr. and Mrs. Georghiou were granted exit permits for their holiday. As regards Dr. Phanos, the refusal was due to a misunderstanding of current instructions. He, too, is now being given an exit permit. I regret these two administrative errors. The refusal of a permit for Mr. John Christofides was based on security grounds, on which the noble Lord will not expect me to enlarge.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very full reply. May I put to him a supplementary question, arising out of the case of Mr. John Christofides? May I ask the noble
538
Earl whether any charge has been preferred against this British subject?
THE EARL OF PERTH: So far as I know, no charge has been preferred against this British subject. He is subject, like everyone else in Cyprus, to the exit regulations under Emergency Powers, by which he has to seek a permit before being allowed to leave Cyprus.

THE OXFORD RING ROAD
2.39 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when the authorisation for the commencement of the work on the extension to the Southern by-pass and Sandford link roads necessary to complete the Oxford by-pass ring road will be issued in fulfilment of the undertakings given to the House by the Government on the 13th February and 27th February last.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, on February 27 I was able to announce that the preparation of the engineering details for the western by-pass round Oxford had been authorised and that it was hoped construction would begin next year. I also announced that financial approval had been given for the eastern by-pass. So far as the remaining section of the ring road is concerned, that part which is included in the scheme for the extension of the southern by-pass from South Hinksey to Littlemore, with a link to Sandford, I explained that that was the subject of a draft order about which certain representations had been received and were under consideration. I went on, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to assure your Lordships' House of the importance the Government attached to the Oxford by-pass roads.
The position today is substantially the same as that which I described to your Lordships on February 27 last. When the roads already authorised have been completed, Oxford will have a very useful system of by-passes by which through traffic from the north can reach the Abingdon—Southampton road by way of

539
the western and southern by-passes, or the Henley road by way of the northern and eastern by-passes.
The cost of the western trunk road by-pass is estimated at £1,600,000. In addition, the Government are making a grant of £810,000 towards the cost of the eastern by-pass. This is 75 per cent. of the total cost, which is estimated at £1,080,000. My Lords, this is not, I think, ungenerous, nor is it intended to stop here; but the estimated cost of the road from South Hinksey to Sandford to complete the ring round Oxford, a road which will have to span the river and the railway, is over £1 million. I am not in a position to inform your Lordships when this money will be available, as the line of the road has not yet been established. The divisional road engineer is now conferring with the Oxford county surveyor about a revised design to meet the representations which have been made. Progress has been made in the course of their discussions, but no firm conclusion as to the line has yet been reached. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will certainly look at the matter again as soon as the line has been fixed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I can only thank the noble Lord for the length of his reply—not for the fullness of the facts given. If the noble Lord will permit me to say so, I am sure that his statement will be received with disappointment, if not with consternation, by your Lordships, who were under the impression that the undertakings given in the two debates to which I have referred in my Question were explicit. With regard to what the noble Lord has said about detail, may I inform him that the Sandford link is vital, because it provides the only alternative route across the River Thames from Oxford to Abingdon, and until it is completed, all the rest of this work is more or less inconclusive and a waste of money. However, may I ask the noble Lord to accept it from me that the subject is far too big to be dealt with by question and answer, and as the Answer which has been given to my Question is so eminently unsatisfactory, I intend to put down a Motion at the earliest possible moment to allow your Lordships to express your opinions upon this deplorable Answer on a vital national question.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord's two points. If he wishes to put down a Motion he will, of course, do so—I am at his service and that of the House. But I am sorry that he should have used language quite so strong as that which he has used. I cannot think why he finds deplorable an Answer which was given in exactly the same terms as the one I gave to the House some weeks ago. There has been no change: there has been no change of plan and no change of promise. This is a matter of opinion to which the noble Lord is entitled, but he would not expect me to agree with one single word of what he has said.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, without necessarily associating myself with the particular epithets used by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, may I ask the Government, speaking not only personally but as Chairman of the Oxford Preservation Trust, whether they realise that, while there are many disputes about other aspects of the Oxford traffic problem, there is universal agreement on the great importance and urgency of the completion of the whole by-pass ring, of which this is an essential element? The very fact that there must be delay in taking other measures that will ultimately be necessary is perhaps a greater reason for doing everything possible to reduce to the minimum the delay in completing this vital part of the by-pass ring.
LORD MANCROFT: Yes, my Lords, I fully appreciate the importance of this last portion of the ring and I have told your Lordships so on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, we cannot do everything at once, and, as I have made perfectly clear to the House, we are already doing a great deal. That does not minimise the weight of the noble Lord's observation that the completion of the whole task would indeed be more than satisfactory.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's criticism of my language, may I ask him to bear in mind the Question I asked him on February 27? I then said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202 (No. 39), col. 76]:
" May I ask him whether the House may take his reply to my question as an earnest of the Government's desire to treat this as a matter of high national importance, which was

541
the note running through the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House during the debate to which my question refers?"
That was the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. The noble Lord's reply was [Col. 77]:
" The answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question is ' yes '."
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, that is what I said and that is what I have repeated this afternoon. The Government fully appreciate the urgency of the matter and I cannot allow it to be said for one moment that there was anything in the remarks I made on February 27 that could suggest that approval had been given for this portion of the road—the Sandford link. Approval had not been given for it and nothing I said then suggested that it had been given, nor could any such implication be drawn from the words I used on that day.

TREATMENT OF EXPORTED CATTLE
2.48 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ammon, I beg leave to ask the Question appearing in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a statement can be made as to the decision of the working party of experts deputed from the countries concerned to consider matters concerning the treatment of exported cattle].
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords. I am afraid that there is a hiatus here. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, gave notice that he would not be here to-day and therefore the Minister is not present to answer the Question. I regret that there is not an Answer, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, will put a Question down on the Order Paper and I will see that there is a reply.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, perhaps it is my fault. As your Lordships know, I am interested in this matter and I thought that it would be well to have the Government's Answer on record. I must
542
ask to be forgiven if I have transgressed in any way.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think we can call it quits, because I do not know whose the mistake is. But if the noble Lord would put the Question clown again. I will see that he receives a reply.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, could the Answer not be printed tomorrow in the OFFICIAL REPORT as an Answer to a Written Question?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, my Lords, if that is satisfactory. But the noble Lord may prefer to ask a Question on which supplementaries may be put. If so, no doubt we can arrange for an Answer to be given.

ADVERTISEMENTS (HIRE-PURCHASE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
LEGITIMATION (RE-REGISTRATION OF BIRTH) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PARISH COUNCILS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES (NAVY, MARINES AND SERVICE CIVILIANS) (OVERSEAS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
SUPERANNUATION BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

THERMAL INSULATION (INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS) BILL
Brought from the Commons.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, this may be a popular Bill on such a hot day. I beg to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a,—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
READING CORPORATION (TROL- LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL
2.50 p.m.
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
2.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD STRATHCLYDE): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has two principal objects. They are, first, to double that part of weekly National Insurance payments which goes towards the cost of the National Health Service; and second, to separate these increased amounts from the National Insurance payments and thus make them an entirely distinct National Health Service contribution. In inviting noble Lords to give the Bill its Second Reading, I speak both for the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland; for the Bill applies equally to England and Wales and to Scotland.
Before proceeding to give reasons for the Bill and the objects which it will achieve, it may be helpful if I explain exactly what are the present arrangements for the payment of contributions to the National Health Service through the National Insurance scheme. The weekly National Insurance contributions made by all people who have to do so or have opted to do so under the National Insurance Act, 1948, are paid into the National Insurance fund. The Act provides that a certain part of these payments—specified in the Fourth Schedule—should be transferred to the Exchequer as a contribution towards the cost of the National Health Service. The amounts so transferred are 10d. out of the total weekly National Insurance contribution paid in respect of insured men. For insured women the amount is 8d. For insured boys and girls it is 6d. In the case of employed persons 1½d. out of each of these sums is the employers share.
The origin of this arrangement is to be found in the Beveridge Report. One of the presuppositions of the social insurance scheme recommended in the Report was a comprehensive Health Service. Lord Beveridge thought that insured persons should not be relieved wholly of the burden of contributing towards the cost of such a Service in order that they

545
might bear it as taxpayers, and therefore suggested that some element in the insurance payments should go to meet part of the cost of a Health Service. This conception was accepted by the Coalition Government in 1944, and by the Labour Government in formulating the National Insurance Act of 1946.
I should now like to indicate the reasons why the Government have decided to double the existing National Health Service element in weekly National Insurance contributions and to establish it as a completely separate National Health Service contribution. The cost of the National Health Service has increased steadily year by year since it was introduced. In 1949–50, the first full year of operation of the Service, the total cost was £450 million; the estimated total cost for the current year is £690 million. It must be recognised, of course, that some of this increase results from increased costs and increased wages. Even when allowance is made, however, for the rise in the cost of living during this period, the cost in the current year on the basis of 1949–50 prices would be £515 million—that is, a real increase in the cost of the Service of 15 per cent.
This increase is the direct result of the steady expansion of the Service which has taken place since 1949. This expansion has shown itself in several ways: in the increased sums available for new building work—£20,700,000 in the current year, as compared with £15,400,000 in 1956–57 and £12,100,000 in the previous years; an increase in the total number of staffed beds in hospitals from over 512,000 in 1950 to almost 546,000 in 1956; and the fact that in the general practitioner services the number of doctors has risen from about 20,400 in 1949 to about 22,650 in 1956. I could give many other figures to show increases in many spheres, such as staff, dental treatment, sight tests and other aspects of the service, all of which demonstrate the same trend—that is, steady expansion year by year.
The greater part of the cost of the Service is, of course, borne by the Exchequer. In 1949–50 the Exchequer paid £345 million out of the total of £450 million. In the current year the Exchequer, under present arrangements, would pay £550 million out of a total of £690 million. If the expansion to which
546
I have referred is to continue and no new arrangements are introduced for re-distributing the cost of the Service, it will clearly mean that the taxpayer will have to bear year by year a constant and, I think we must admit, rather disturbing additional burden. We must ask ourselves the question: is it right to contemplate a regular annual increase of this kind. Might the taxpayer not legitimately ask whether there is no other reasonable way of meeting at least one part of the extra cost? The Government have been very much aware of this problem and have decided that it is unjustifiable to expect the taxpayer to pay more each year without some relief. They have examined possible alternatives, but have come to the conclusion that in existing circumstances the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem is to increase the payments made by insured persons and employers towards the cost of the National Health Service.
There are several strong arguments for considering such increases reasonable and fair. The first is that these increased contributions will be made by people when they are fit and active: no contributions will be paid, for example, by sick or retired people. The second is that when the National Health Service Act was presented in 1946, it was thought that contributions from insured people would meet 20 per cent. of the total cost of the Service—and it was considered reasonable that contributions should meet this proportion of the whole. In fact, as the total cost of the Service has increased, the proportion borne by contributions has become smaller and smaller. In the current year it will be only about 6 per cent. It is therefore reasonable, I suggest, that the contributions be increased, if not to the 20 per cent., at least to some rather higher proportion than at present. The third argument is that these extra payments should not bear heavily on people generally, observing that average earnings have doubled since 1946.
In the light of these considerations, noble Lords may well agree that it is desirable to increase the contributions to the cost of the Service by insured people and employers, but they may be wondering why it is necessary to establish quite separate National Health Service contributions. It would be possible to obtain the money without a separate Health Service contribution, but it seems

547
desirable from the Government's point of view, to demonstrate to everyone the separate identity of these contributions. Too often in the past people have been unaware that the National Insurance weekly payments contain this National Health Service element; or if they were aware of it, they did not know how small it was. By establishing a separate contribution we shall make the position clear to everyone and thus avoid confusion. For general convenience, however, these new and separate contributions will not require a separate stamp. One stamp will cover both payments, and it will contain wording to make it clear to everyone that it does cover two quite separate payments.
I should like to give the House a brief description of some of the provisions in the Bill itself. Clause 1 provides that as from an appointed day every person who pays or is liable to pay contributions under the National Insurance Acts, whether an insured person or an employer, shall also be liable to pay a specific contribution towards the cost of the National Health Service. I would emphasise that no new class of persons is being asked to make these contributions. Under subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1, taken with the First Schedule, the total amount of these new contributions will be 1s. 8d. for a man; 1s. 4d. for a woman; and 1s. for a juvenile; and 3½d. of each of these sums will be payable by the employer in the case of employed persons. These sums compare with the present 10d. for a man, 8d. for a woman and 6d. for a juvenile, with l½d. of the total amount at present paid by the employer. Altogether the increased contributions will provide about £80 million, compared to the present £40 million.
Subsection (4) of the same clause provides that the contributions shall be collected by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on behalf of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will be shared between England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other, in proportion to the total insured populations in the two countries. Clause 2 deals with the consequential effect on the weekly insurance rates; and these are set out in the Third Schedule of the Bill.
548
In Clause 3 we have made the necessary provision for ensuring that the Health Service contributions and the National Insurance contributions are collected together as one payment for the convenience of everyone. We also provide in this clause that the appropriate provisions of the National Insurance Acts, and regulations made under these Acts, regarding collection and enforcement apply to the combined contributions.
There is a further point on Clause 3 which is worth special mention. The first is that in subsection (4) there is a provision which has the effect of repealing the present rule that the Health Service element in National Insurance contributions may rank for relief for income tax purposes. This ensures that, no matter what the level of income may be, the full amount of the contribution accrues to the Health Service without the Exchequer at the same time suffering a loss through relief from tax. It will, however, be open to employers (except employers of domestic servants) to claim relief from income tax on contributions made by them on behalf of their employees. This is on the ordinary basis that these contributions are a business expense.
Clause 5 enables the Government of Northern Ireland to pass legislation for purposes similar to that contained in this Bill. I hope that I have succeeded in making clear to the House the general objects of the Bill, and given sufficient indication of its detailed provisions. I am convinced that these new proposals will help us to maintain a full and adequate Health Service and that the cost will be distributed fairly and reasonably. I therefore ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
3.05 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, your Lordships will be obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the clear exposition he has given of this Bill. He has made it clear that it has two principal objectives: first, to double the contribution paid to the National Health Service by the individual, and to that extent to relieve the general taxpayer of an equivalent amount; and, secondly, to establish for the first time a separate

549
Health Service contribution, if not, indeed (I am not quite clear about this), a separate Health Service Fund.
To take the second purpose first, it is instructive to remember a little of the history of National Health Insurance. Under the National Insurance Act, 1911, Drought in, of course, by Mr. Lloyd George, the Health Service was provided as part of a general, though limited, social insurance system. Under that Act, the worker, the employer and the State each made a contribution, and the contributor was entitled to certain fixed benefits, which were provided by virtue of the premium or contribution paid. In those days, of course, prescriptions had not to be paid for—they were free. Then, under the Act of 1946, brought in by the Labour Government, there was no separate premium or contribution; the contribution was merged or included in the total payment under the National Insurance. Act. The National Health Service Act made no provision for contribution; the provision was made in the National Insurance Act. Now, for the first tine, there is to be a direct contribution in respect of the Health Service, imposing or doubling the liability upon the individual; and, at the same time, the payment for prescriptions—which as your Lordships know, was introduced by this Government, and has since been considerably increased—is to continue.
If I may say one word on the matter of the prescription, your Lordships will remember that that payment has to be made by sick people to the chemist on obtaining a medicine by means of a prescription. Whilst originally the charge was to be 1s. per prescription, under the present Government that payment has been increased, in that one has now to pay for each item in a prescription. That is a heavy additional burden, and a burden on sick people. Take the case, for example, of someone suffering from diabetes. I am told that there are three items in that prescription, which means that every time sufferers who are prescribed insulin go to the chemist, instead of paying 1s. they have to pay 3s. for the medicine on the prescription. It is a continuous and a permanent payment which the sufferers from certain complaints have to make. I have always thought that the payment for a prescription was wrong and unfair, because it
550
puts a burden on the sick person at a time when he or she can least afford it. There may be justification for making all pay a contribution when well, but surely, it should be for those who are fit and well—the community as a whole who are not in need of medical attention—to make their contribution towards the prescription needed by the unfortunate sick person. I am aware that one of the reasons alleged for that imposition was that it was said that sick persons were requiring, and doctors were giving, unnecessary prescriptions; and it was said that there was considerable waste. In my view, that argument was very much exaggerated. In any event, surely the right course was to take steps to ensure that medical men issue prescriptions only in proper cases, and not to deal with the matter by way of a side wind and make a charge against a sick person.
To revert to the main issue, the establishment of a separate Health Service charge and a direct contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has giver various reasons for this drastic change. He has mentioned one result which I think will probably be welcomed. I gather that one incidental result will be to do away with the income tax allowance hitherto made in respect of individual contributions. Clearly, that should indirectly, help those who pay little or no income tax, as the allowance, I gather, will not be made to those who pay income tax at the higher rates and to that extent the Revenue will benefit. The allowance will be made in the case of firms who can justify the payments for their staff as being part of their business expenses. That will be a desirable change Otherwise, it is difficult to see the real reason for the change to a separate contribution.
Is it to enable the charge to be raised from time to time as costs go up? For example, now that the charge, or the fund for the contribution, is to be separate, is it the intention of the Government, if the doctors obtain higher remuneration, again to increase the contribution, which is now being increased from 10d. to 1s. 8d.? If the doctors' remuneration is increased, will the contribution of the individual contributor also be increased, or is the object to make a beginning in establishing a wholly or mainly contributory Health Scheme?

551
Some of us on this side of the House suspect that one or other, or possibly both, of those objects is in the mind of the Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to disabuse our minds of any of those suspicions.
With regard to the first object of the Bill, to double the existing contributions and relieve the general taxpayer, the noble Lord has made it clear that that is necessary by reason of the increased cost of the Service, which has risen from some £450 million, I gather, in 1949–50 to some £690 million—a truly terrifying sum—in 1957–58. The noble Lord has given as the reason for that increase in cost the great expansion in the Service which has taken place—and no doubt there has been some very considerable expansion of the Service. The Government themselves, however, must bear a very large responsibility for that increased cost. I hardly need reiterate to your Lordships the rise in costs and prices in all commodities that has taken place.
In the past year alone, up to February, 1957, food prices rose some 3.9 points, and housing 4.8 points, without taking into account the increases which the recent Rent Act is likely to bring about. The price of milk, bread and most commodities, and even of money itself, has gone up under this Government, with the result, of course, that wages and salaries have had to go up too. Therefore, a very large proportion of this increased expense must be, and in my judgment is, due to the Government's deliberate action. Why, therefore, should the contribution towards that additional expense be shifted from the general taxpayer where it lies at present to the individual contributor, including, of course, the lowest paid workers in the country, many of whom are very hard put to it in present conditions to maintain themselves? Surely it is a rather mean and pettifogging action to impose an additional burden of £40 million, out of a total of £690 million, to relieve the well-to-do taxpayer, and for the most part to impose that £40 million on the lowest paid workers in the country. The better-off taxpayer pays according to his means, and, as I understood it, the object of the Labour Government was to give the Health Service to those who were most in need. It must
552
be clear that this Bill spells greater hardship for many of our fellow-citizens, and that at the same time as there is this transfer of additional liability from the general taxpayer to the individual contributor, irrespective of means, the surtax payer under the Finance Bill is being relieved of almost an identical amount of between £35 million and £40 million.
Furthermore, whilst the precise figures are not easy to come by, I think there can be no question that the proportion paid by the Exchequer towards the Health Service is decreasing year by year in comparison with the national income. One would have assumed that in those circumstances the Exchequer would bear a larger share of the cost. Our Health Service is the envy of the world. Whilst there is much still to be done, there can be no doubt that the existing scheme has brought better health and greater peace of mind and happiness to millions of people in this country. It has kept men and women at productive work, has saved money in many directions and during illness has been a great consolation—indeed, I think a great benefit—to the British people. Therefore, we are not clear why, at this stage, the Government should seek to make this change in the scheme. It is because we believe that this Bill is really part of the Government's whole policy of transferring burdens from the Exchequer to individuals, irrespective of means or need and, as we think, to the greatest disadvantage of those least able to pay, that we oppose it.
3.17 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I want to say a word because I disagree with my noble friend who has just spoken. He himself is, of course, entitled to National Health treatment. Many people in his position in life are entitled it it and get it. And there is no reason why they should not. They get very good treatment, on the whole, but in my view—and I speak with long medical experience—there is undoubtedly a great waste of money in this scheme. Large numbers of people go for treatment who really do not need treatment at all. They need dealing with on the material plane by being "bucked up" to face their life as it is, instead of becoming chronic invalids. I myself have a panel doctor,

553
as I daresay my noble friend has too. Everybody in the country is entitled to have National Health Insurance treatment. I believe that we should not be satisfied with the present situation but should look into the matter fully and decide whether we cannot deal more economically and efficiently with this question than we are dealing with it at present.
A great many people go to the doctor and get a large bottle of medicine. I went the other day to my panel doctor. It was the first time in my life that I had ever been to a panel doctor. I told him I had a mild complaint. I was prescribed a large bottle of medicine which will last me, I think, for about two or three months. I do not know whether I shall require it all that time—I do not suppose I shall. I came to the conclusion, after a number of experiences of that kind, that there was great waste.
Moreover, I was for a long time chairman of the national medical committee which dealt with the medical profession as a whole, both in this country and outside, so I can claim to know something about the organisation of the medical profession. I gave up that appointment less than two years ago. I think it is time we had an investigation into the whole question of whether we are adequately dealing with the situation as it is. It is nobody's fault, but it is very easy indeed for a doctor—and some doctors there are who have done it—not to discourage his patients from having medicine but rather encourage them, in order to try to cheer them up. But one can go too far in that direction. I believe that a doctor should go straightforwardly to cure his patients by bringing before them ideas of health and well being. A number of people go to see their panel doctor regularly because they think it is a social occasion—every doctor who has been in practice knows that to be a fact. They have a good gossip in the room. In my view that state of affairs is not satisfactory, and I think it is time—I do not want to cast any undue aspersions on the panel service—that we looked into this matter thoroughly, to discover whether we cannot improve the situation, to make the service more efficient and more health-giving than it is at present.
3.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am always willing to listen to my noble friend Lord Haden-Guest in these matters—he has professional experience—but I think that if he had been speaking in another place he would not have been in order on this particular Bill.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: May I say that I should have made exactly the same speech, rather more strongly?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: But I do not think it would have been allowed by Mr. Speaker. I do not think it arises on this particular measure. We are concerned about the general change, as I am quite sure my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds has already said (I had to be away at another meeting), in the basis of the financing of the National Health Service. I should particularly like to know exactly what is the range of the revised charges in the First Schedule to the Bill. Paragraphs 8 and 9 deal with non-employed men and women and will be based upon the existing Statute. But I am rather concerned about Paragraph 10:
" Non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18 "
who will have to pay 1s. a week. At what age will these compulsory health insurances begin in regard to non-employed boys and girls? Is that covered by the existing Statute? I have not had time to look it up. If so, what is the age, or what will be the operational age, under this Schedule? I think that is most important.
We must all be concerned about the actuarial basis of a great national service, but a great deal of the increased cost in the last five years has arisen from inflation quite outside the control of the medical service, and especially with regard to the charges for improvement and developmental work which was required. There has been a steep rise in the cost of financing those necessary developments and equipments. If we are gradually to get away from the principle which was adopted under the original Act of a free national medical service, then it is better that we should have fairly long notice. This particular increase is raising the cost to the individual to double what it was when the original

555
Statute was passed. If this is to be a precedent for every general item of additional cost in the future, I think we ought to have some explanation of it, so that we may inform the country accordingly.
3.27 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in our discussion of this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, said that it was a direct consequence of the National Health Service. There has always been a contribution from National Insurance to the National Health Service from the beginning of the National Health Service—in fact, it goes back to 1946. In regard to charges—which really have no concern with the present Bill—I would remind the noble Lord that power to make these charges was given by the Labour Government in 1949. So it is not altogether attributable to the present or to a Conservative Government.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: In fairness, the noble Lord ought to say that they were never brought in by the Labour Government, but that the present Government have brought them in.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: If a Government take power to do things, surely that shows an indication that they intend to do so. If that is not so, why on earth should they take such power? Certainly in another place I might have put quite a different interpretation on what the noble Lord said just now. In regard to the point made that the Bill acts harshly on those who suffer from diseases such as diabetes, I would tell the noble Lord that there are provisions which enable a practitioner, in appropriate cases, to provide for a three months' supply of insulin on the one prescription form. The noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, has given us an example of that in his own case.
The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, said that it was difficult to see the reason for the change. I pointed out to the House the increased cost to the service. I pointed out that it is not all due to rises in prices and wages, but to a considerable extent to the expansion of the service—to the extent of some 15 per cent. But I will differ from the noble Lord when he suggests that the inflation
556
is due to the cost of living going up in advance of wages and salaries. From my own reading of the Press and debates in this House and in another place, it seems to me that wages and salaries, at least in recent years, have been going up prior to the increase in the cost of living—in fact, that may well be the principal cause of the increase in the cost of living. The noble Lord says that many workers are hard put to it. I said in the course of my earlier remarks that it is not unreasonable to increase the contribution in view of the fact that earnings have risen to double the rate at which they stood in the year 1946. I would say this to the noble Lord as well: that when the 1946 Bill was introduced the contributions were intended to meet 20 per cent. of the total cost of the National Health Service. I have already told the House that the present proportion is 6 per cent., and under this Bill it will increase to 12 per cent. I do not think that this is an unreasonable increase.
The noble Lord further said that the proportion of the cost was decreasing in relation to the national income. Offhand, I cannot just work that out. But I will tell him that when the National Health Service Bill was introduced it was stated in the Financial Memorandum which went with the Bill that the Exchequer would bear 72·4 per cent. of the total cost. In fact in the first year of operation it bore 76·3 per cent.; since then it has been running at about 80 per cent., with fluctuations down to as low as 78 per cent.; and in the current year the Exchequer will bear 79·9 per cent. of the total cost. So whatever may have happened in relation to the national income, it has not happened in relation to the total cost of the Service.
I was asked a question specifically by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in relation to item No. 10 in the First Schedule to the Bill. The operational age is the school-leaving age and there is no change whatsoever in the existing law. One other question was asked—namely, whether any National Health Service fund was now established. The answer to that question is: No. The National Health contributions are to be paid by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance direct to the Health Ministers, towards the cost of the National Health Service. I indicated that

557
in the course of my opening remarks. I hope that I have answered the questions which have been put to me, and I shall now be grateful if your Lordships will grant this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question. Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

GENEVA CONVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA IN THE CHAIR]
Clause 1:
Grave breaches of scheduled conventions
1.—(1) If any person, whatever his nationality, commits, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, any such grave breach of any of the scheduled conventions as is referred to in the following articles respectively of those conventions, that is to say—

(a) article 50 of the convention set out in the First Schedule to this Act;

(b) article 51 of the convention set out in the Second Schedule to this Act;

(c) article 130 of the convention set out in the Third Schedule to this Act; or

(d) article 147 of the convention set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act.

he shall be guilty of felony and on conviction thereof—

(i) in the case of such a grave breach as aforesaid involving the wilful killing of a person protected by the convention in question, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life;

(ii) in the case of any other such grave breach as aforesaid, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out from "If" down to and including "Kingdom", and to insert:
" Any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The Amendment which I am now proposing has as its object to make certain that not only persons who actually
558
commit a grave breach but also persons who aid, abet or procure them to do so are guilty of an offence under Clause 1. It has been suggested that there is some doubt whether, for example, without this Amendment a person who procures another person to commit a grave breach abroad would be within the clause, because it is possible, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, would agree, to take the view that the general rules about accessories and abettors are limited to offences within the jurisdiction; and in several instances Statutes making actions abroad criminal in the United Kingdom have included an express provision on the lines of the Amendment. The Conventions require States to provide for the punishment:
"of persons committing or ordering to be committed"
grave breaches. It is thought that the words I stress: "or ordering to be committed" apply only to cases where the grave breach ordered has in fact been committed. This case is covered by the word "procured" and it is not necessary or appropriate to go further and include unsuccessful incitement to commit a grave breach. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 10 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF (HILLS-BOROUGH: The Opposition have considered this point and we believe it is fundamental. We agree with the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("he").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to add to in subsection (1):
"' court ' does not include a court-martial;".
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is to make it clear that the references in the Bill to "courts" do not include courts-martial, whether Service courts-martial, under the Army Act, 1955, or corresponding Acts for other Services; or what I may call prisoner-of-war courts-martial, under a Royal Warrant. There is an exactly similar definition in Section 80 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. Where the Conventions require that provisions similar to those made by the Bill in respect of civilian courts should be made in respect of courts-martial, any necessary provision will be made under the existing powers for regulating courts-martial or in the Royal Warrant relating to prisoner-of-war courts-martial. That is a perfectly usual procedure with which those of us who have had to deal with courts-martial are very familiar; and I hope that your Lordships will agree that it would be cumbersome to deal with this matter in the Bill, especially as regards Clause 3, which includes technical provisions for legal representation based on the procedure in civilian courts, which could not be applied to courts-martial without modification. I have satisfied myself that it will not mean any derogation in the assistance given to people charged by courts-martial. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 34, at end insert—
("'court ' does not include a court-martial;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: We are quite agreeable to the making of this Amendment. I rather gathered that if any of these particular conventions fell to be dealt with in a particular place where it had been essential to establish martial law over the whole territory, there would in fact be all necessary adjustments to meet the point in relation to courts-martial. We feel, therefore, that it is right for this provision to go in.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree that that is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

NON-GERMAN REFUGEES IN GERMANY
3.38 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, with special regard to the plight of the non-German refugees in Germany, what their policy is on the future of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Refugee Fund. The noble Lord said: My Lords, whenever there is a great upheaval in the world an immense amount of sympathy is aroused for the victims of it. We saw this last November, at the time of the Hungarian uprising, and in the way the Hungarian refugees "hit" the news headlines. It has always been the case that while these refugees are "news", sympathy and support for them last; but unfortunately the sympathy and support seldom last quite long enough to clear up the problem. There is a danger that if the Hungarian refugees are not settled the remnant of them will go to join the huge body of old refugees.
The old refugees, to whom I want particularly to draw your Lordships' attention, are the non-German refugees in Germany. There are 218,000 of them—27,490 in camps and 190,510 outside. Some of the 190,000, while admittedly still under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner, have already managed to make a life for themselves; but a large number of them outside the camps are still not settled. They live and exist as and how they can, some of them in bunkers, the old German air raid shelters, some in very low-standard accommodation, such as cellars and garrets, some even in disused vehicles. These non-German refugees in Germany are remnants of 7 million-odd Stateless refugees from Eastern Europe, who finished up in Germany at the end of the war.
I should like briefly to trace their history from the end of the war to the present day. The 7 million-odd Stateless refugees in Germany got there for various reasons. Some were slave labourers and were taken there by the Germans in bulk from the countries of Eastern Europe. Some were prisoners of war who had been fighting against the Germans; some even were in resistance groups at the age of 15 or 16. Some were political prisoners from concentration camps, and some were

561
voluntary refugees from Communism, who retreated with the German armies at the end of the war and did not attempt to go back afterwards to their own countries. These groups all have one thing in common—they are anti-Communist.
At the end of the war, faced with the problem of this vast number of refugees in Germany, as well as colossal numbers elsewhere, the United Nations set up two consecutive bodies—from 1945 to 1947 the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Agency, and from 1947 to 1951 the International Refugee Organisation. Under the auspices of these two bodies over 6 million of the non-German refugees in Germany were repatriated to their own countries. Seven hundred thousand luckier ones were able to emigrate to free countries. The International Refugee Organisation was due to close down on December 31, 1951. It was then thought that the refugees whom the International Refugee Organisation had been looking after were almost all settled, and that the problem that was left would be within the scope of the host countries—the countries where the refugees were. It was also thought that, while the host countries would have the responsibility of looking after these refugees, it would be a good thing for them to have some form of international protection. As a result, the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was established in 1950, with a mandate for three years from January 1, 1951, thereby having an overlap of one year with the International Refugee Organisation. His scope was to be an international protector and also to "liaise" with the various host Governments and to promote integration of the refugees within the countries.
When he had taken office and begun to look into the matters with which he had to deal, he found that the problem was not as small as had been thought and was not within the capabilities of the host Governments. He needed funds, international funds, in order to help these refugees to become settled in the countries where they were. In 1953, the Ford Foundation of America gave him 3 million dollars to finance a programme designed to bring about a permanent solution of the problem of refugees. This he used, with matching contributions from the Governments of the countries where refugees were; and, as a result, in 1954 he was able to approach the United
562
Nations and ask for funds for a permanent solution. He was able to illustrate this need not only with a programme of what he wanted to do for refugees but also with an account of what he had managed to do with the 3 million dollars given by the Ford Foundation. The United Nations unanimously approved that a fund should be given to the High Commissioner to settle refugees. He was to be given a fund called the United Nations Refugee Fund which was to last four years; he was to have 16 million dollars—4 million dollars a year. This aid was to be financed out of voluntary contributions from Governments, and was to be administered by a 20-nation committee who were to approve projects submitted to them by the High Commissioner. This 16 million dollar, 4-year, fund ends on December 31, 1958, at the same time as the Mandate of the High Commissioner.
To come back to the non-German refugees in Germany. There are 218,000 of them. For the very reason that they are left there, they are the hard cases. They are all, for some reason, disqualified from emigration. Some of them have tuberculosis; some of them are too old. Some of them follow occupations, exponents of which are not needed by the countries of emigration. One should not think from this that all of them are not fit and capable, because one of the main reasons they are disqualified from emigrating is that perhaps one member of a family has tuberculosis, or is too old and the others cannot take him with them and do not want to leave him behind. So, just because they may have a dependant who has tuberculosis, a whole family may have to stay in Germany. The countries of emigration, of course, have, in the main, taken refugees in accordance with their own needs: they will take those who are useful as manpower, but they will not take dependants who are not in themselves useful.
The second reason these refugees are there is that they steadfastly refuse to go back to their own countries which are under Communist rule. There is only one choice open to them: they must integrate themselves in Germany and try to make something of a livelihood for themselves. They have two primary needs. The first is housing. According

563
to the latest figures, there are 25,000-odd people in refugee camps in Germany. All those must be rehoused and given decent accommodation. There are large numbers outside the camps, though just how large the numbers are I do not yet know. At any rate, large numbers outside the camps also need decent housing for themselves and their families. The second need, once these people have houses, is a means of livelihood. They need to be able to work and to be able to support themselves. Large numbers will have had tuberculosis, or are perhaps too old and fit only for part-time jobs. Part-time jobs, however, are difficult to come by in Germany. Most German factories and firms naturally reserve their part-time jobs for their own employees who are old or on semi-employment, and there are just not enough of these jobs to go round among these refugees.
Some of these displaced persons are professional men—bankers, solicitors and the like. They have an immense amount of learning, perhaps, which is of no use to them. Their experience is of no use to them in Germany. So it is that one may find that a university professor has had to take a manual job working on the roads—probably only part-time at that. All these people need to be integrated in Germany and to be found jobs where their special qualities and intelligence, or the proficiencies they may have, may be used and not wasted. Integration in Germany ought to be as near as possible to the standard that the individual had in his own country.
A colossal problem among the refugees in Germany is that of tuberculosis. Many get tuberculosis, go to sanatoria and become cured, then come out and have to go back to the same housing conditions and the same under-nourishment from which they originally contracted the disease, and many of them get it again. What is needed in Germany for these people is a large number of post-sanatorium establishments so that tuberculosis patients can go and learn to make useful citizens of themselves. Then there are the very old and very ill, who cannot earn their own living or do a good job. For them are needed homes and hospitals, places where they can go and be with their own countrymen, who can
564
speak the same language, who have the same thoughts and can understand them. Roughly, these are the ordinary difficulties of the non-German refugees in Germany that have to be solved.
There is another difficulty. These men, all of them, have been waiting for ten or twelve years. During that time they may have been shifted from camp to camp, or they may have been hopelessly trying to make a life for themselves outside camp. Many of them have gradually lost their self-respect and the will to work. They get set ideas, and before anything can really be done for them they have to be given back their will to work. They have to be made to want to be helped before they can be helped, and that is really a psychiatrist's job. The more cases that are helped, the deeper into the barrel one goes, the worse they become.
Not all the funds of the United Nations Refugee Fund have been spent on the remainder of the refugees who were under the International Refugee Organisation: In the first few years of the Refugee Fund, more money was spent on refugees in Austria than on those in Germany. There are 126,000 refugees in Austria, of whom 96,000 are Volkesdeutsche, or Ethnic Germans; so that there are only 30,000 foreign refugees. At the end of the war, the Ethnic Germans were expelled from non-Fascist and non-Communist countries, such as that of Beneš of Czechoslovakia. They were specifically excluded from help under the International Refugee Organisation by the paragraph which excluded
" refugees who have been or may be transferred to Germany from other countries."
Their position is very different from that of the non-German refugees both in Germany and in Austria from the countries of Eastern Europe, who found themselves there for different reasons. These men are of German origin. They have two alternatives open to them. At any time they want, they can take up Austrian nationality or at any moment they can go over into Germany and so automatically receive German nationality. These refugees, therefore, are an internal economic problem for the Government and not a political and social one that needs international assistance.
These 96,000 Volkesdeutsche out of 126,000 refugees leave 30,000 foreign refugees in Austria, and with the 218,000

565
in Germany they are the sole remains of the refugees left by the International Refugee Organisation, for whom originally the United Nations Refugee Fund was instituted. The funds of the United Nations Refugee Fund have always been concentrated more or less on closing the camps rather than on the refugees outside the camps. In Germany, there are 27,490 refugees inside the camps and 190,510 outside. In Austria, there are 6,000 odd in camps and 24,000 outside. Since the latest Executive Committee meeting of the United Nations Refugee Fund, it has been decided to concentrate the funds even more than before on closing these camps. The late High Commissioner for Refugees, Dr. Goedhart, in his speech on being given the Nobel Prize for Peace, 1954, for his office, described these camps as:
"…black spots on the map of Europe and should burn holes in the consciences of those who are privileged to live in better conditions."
That is very true. The camps are black spots on the map of Europe; but the problem outside the camps is even bigger than the problem inside. There is a great danger, if the problem of the refugees in the camps is settled first, that once these black spots are gone, people will not realise that there remains the problem of the refugees outside the camps. Dr. Goedhart went on:
"But dissolution of camps is a process which is much more complicated than appears at first sight. The building of houses is by no means enough. The refugee, in order to solve his problem, must be able to maintain his family and himself. He must, if he has lost his skill, be re-trained in a trade for which there is a demand, and his house must be within a reasonable distance from his work. If he intends to set himself up in a small business he may need a loan at a moderate interest."
All these are needed by refugees outside the camps as much as by those inside. There is a third point. If the United Nations Refugee Fund are choosing those refugees who should be helped first, they have two choices—either to select those who have the greater claim, the International Relief Organisation refugees, or the refugees in the camps. They cannot do anything else.
There was a meeting of the Executive Committee of the United Nations Refugee Fund at the end of May and the beginning of June this year. At that meeting, it came out that by the end
566
of 1958, the four-year 16 million dollar programme of the Fund, which has to be raised by voluntary contributions from Governments, would be short of 2,700,000 dollars. At that meeting it was said that if the 2,700,000 were contributed, an extra 4,800,000 dollars would still be needed in order to close the camps. The question is: is this extra help to be given, and is it to be given by intensifying the present programme, or by prolonging the programme beyond the mandate of 1958? Two meetings are to take place this month. There is a special Executive Committee meeting of the United Nations Refugee Fund on July 11. The reason for this is that at the last Executive Committee meeting delegates were not empowered by their Governments to give any views on whether the extra 4,800,000 dollars should be allowed. The meeting later this month of the committee of the United Nations Refugee Fund is to decide that. Secondly, there is a meeting of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations from today until August 2, during which time, among other things, the whole future of the United Nations Refugee Fund and the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will be discussed; and the Economic and Social Council, according to their findings, will make recommendations to the General Council in the autumn. I do not think that any of your Lordships, or Her Majesty's Government, would disagree that the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees should, and must, be continued while there is still a refugee anywhere who needs his help.
As for the United Nations Refugee Fund, what I should like to ask is: will the British delegate at the special Executive Committee meeting this month give full support in persuading other nations 10 make up the shortfall of 2,700,000 dollars on the 16 million-dollar programme; and will he also give full support to the provision of the extra 4,800,0000 dollars needed to close the camps? This may mean a higher United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations Refugee Fund. At the moment we contribute £100,000. Of this sum. £80,000 is automatic, and £20,000 is conditional on a certain amount being raised from other countries. In a debate on

567
refugees in another place on March 8 of this year the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 566 (No. 68) col 758]:
" In consideration of the contribution which we have made, it is worth recalling that the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations Refugee Fund last year was the second highest of any country in the world, America being the only other country with a higher contribution."
That is true, of course. But when we consider the other countries who contribute to the United Nations Refugee Fund, we have to consider also their relative economic strength. Of the countries who contribute to that Fund, America is the most economically strong, and second in order come ourselves.
The contributions to the United Nations Organisation budget are not voluntary, but are worked out by a special committee and based on the economic strength of each individual country. The United Kingdom contribution is 7.81 per cent. The contribution of Denmark, based on her economic strength, is 66 of 1 per cent. The only fair way to compare our contribution to the United Nations Refugee Fund—a voluntary contribution—to that of Denmark, is to compare it not in terms of dollars but in terms of the economic strength of the country. If the 4 million dollars per year was divided up in terms of the contributions to the United Nations budget, our contribution to the United Nations Refugee Fund should be 343,000 dollars, whereas it is £100,000, or 280,000 dollars; and the contribution of Denmark should be 29,040 dollars, whereas it is 72,390 dollars. In other words, Denmark, although contributing very much less to the United Nations Refugee Fund than we ourselves, in comparison to her economic strength (the widow's mite) is contributing vastly more.
We should support the giving of this extra money to the United Nations Refugee Fund, and the making up of the shortfall in contributions. And Her Majesty's Government may like to support the High Commissioner and the United Nations Refugee Fund in concentrating this money on the closure of the camps and the final wiping out of these black spots in Europe. But it should be
568
done not with the idea that, by closing the camps, the problem is being finally solved. That is only the beginning of the problem. It must be borne in mind, when the camps are being closed, that there is much more to be done outside: after the extra 4,800,000 dollars has been subscribed by the nations, much more will be needed, and needed as soon as possible, to clear up the whole problem. At the meeting of the Economic and Social Committee of the United Nations next month I hope that Her Majesty's Government will press for the High Commissioner's mandate to be extended for as long as necessary, and for the United Nations Refugee Fund to be continued until the problem is finally cleared up, giving priority to the remainder of the I.R.O. refugees who are in Germany and Austria.
As the matter stands, when the United Nations Refugee Fund comes to an end next year, the whole of the refugees within the mandate will again become the responsibility of the host Governments. So far as Germany is concerned, she is at the moment doing a great deal for the refugees within her boundaries. She is making a large contribution to the United Nations Refugee Fund, and this year it will be about five times what it was before. She is also paying a large matching contribution—slightly more in each case, and sometimes twice as much as the amount supplied out of the United Nations Refugee Fund—in building new flats to house the inmates of the camps. Then we have to remember that, against 218,000 non-German refugees, there are in Western Germany at the moment 12 million refugees from Eastern Germany, 12,000 more coming in each month. Moreover, during the next year, under an agreement signed between the Federal Government and the Governments of Poland and Roumania, there will be 1½ million more East Germans coming in.
If we could do anything to help those people who are behind the Iron Curtain in the slave countries of Eastern Europe, we would do it; and we would do it gladly. These non-German refugees in Germany and the non-Ethnic German refugees in Austria are just as much victims of the present situation as are the people behind the Iron Curtain. There is just one difference: that it is within

569
our power to help them. Why, then, do we not do it? If I may quote again from Dr. Goedhart's speech, he said this:
"There can be no real peace in this world as long as hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, through no fault of their own, but only because they sacrificed all they possessed for the sake of what they believed, still remain in camps and live in misery and in the greatest uncertainty of their future. Eventually, if we wait too long, the uprooted are bound to become easy prey for political adventurers, from whom the world has suffered too much already. Before anything of that sort happens, let us join our hands in an all-out effort to solve their problem."
If anything is to be done it must be done now, before it is too late. The two meetings this month give us an ideal opportunity to change the whole attitude. Her Majesty's Government's attitude at these two meetings will be of the greatest importance. What is the policy of Her Majesty's Government? That is the Question I now beg to ask.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, my noble friend has dealt with this subject with such great knowledge and sincerity that we have all been moved by what he has said, and there is not a great deal for anyone else to add. It is a terrible problem, but anyone who has seen it and read the necessary documents cannot but be moved by the wonderful results which the High Commissioner has achieved since his office was instituted. We are fortunate in having a High Commissioner of energy, imagination and efficiency, and, being one of that great industrious as well as humanitarian nations, the Swiss, he has put the emphasis on self-help. If the money is available there are now well-tried ways for making the refugees people who can be assimilated into the country where they happen to be living.
The emphasis in his report is entirely on things like vocational training, grants for high school courses, grants for university education, making small loans to allow somebody to buy the tools of his trade or set up in business where he wants to start, the rehabilitation of the physicallv handicapped and, as the noble Lord has said, the rehabilitation of the morally handicapped—those who have suffered from what one might call camp psychosis, who need help and encouragement and a certain amount of after care with which, it has been proved in hundreds of thousands of cases, they can be assimilated
570
and become good and useful citizens again.
At the end of 1958 we shall probably be faced with between 100,000 and 150,000 refugees of this class in Europe, of which about 15,000 will still be in camps—because there is no sharp line of demarcation, when at one moment you are a refugee in a camp and at another you are assimilated. It is a gradual process in which they fade into the country around. The whole programme was retarded by the great influx of Hungarian refugees. The trained and expert staff of the High Commissioner had to deal with the Hungarians. Many quotas of immigrants, who would have comprised the old refugees, had to be used to help the Hungarians. Many sources of voluntary financial contribution which would have helped the old refugees very rightly had to help the Hungarians. The result was that there was inevitable delay in getting the programme of assimilation and rehabilitation gone through and getting the camps closed. That, and the short-fall in the promised contributions of the various member Governments, has made this problem of refugees of rather longer duration than we had every right to hope. This Conference is going to take place, and I hope it will go out from this House that Her Majesty's Government will have the support of all shades of opinion in this House if they decide to make a generous contribution towards the solving of the problem of these people who, on the average, have been in these camps for eight years. Children now ten years of age can remember nothing but living in these terrible, miserable, hopeless camps; and every year that goes by it gets worse and worse. They have to be assimilated in the same way as we are successfully assimilating the Hungarian refugees into this country.
I asked one of the leading British officials dealing with this problem how it was going. If I may quote from his letter to me, he said:
" We have discovered that the Hungarian refugees are good, hardworking people, finding employment at a fast rate. The few cases to the contrary "—
which are those which hit the headlines—
"are no more than would be found in any similar group in any country, and should not be allowed to induce the public to think their generosity has been misplaced. It has not"

571
One important matter to which the noble Lord referred is the preventing of a downgrading of refugees—that the professor who can use his brains ought not to be employed as a manual labourer. I saw an example of that this week in the hospital of which I am on the Committee. I asked about the Hungarians. I was told, "Yes, we have one girl working as a waitress." I asked what she was at home, and the answer was "a schoolmistress." I said, "Could we not use her brains better?", and the answer was, "Well, she does not speak any English yet." If that girl can be taught English she can start as a student nurse, where her brains and her aptitude could be much more fully used for the good of this country. We must prevent this downgrading of refugees by giving them education and helping them to assimilate into this country.
I am sure all of us were much moved by the words of Mr. Jones when he addressed the Mineworkers' Conference yesterday on the subject of assimilating the Hungarians into the mines. I do not think a single word can be added to what he said. If we do not assimilate them they will be fodder for Communist propaganda, and we know how easy it is for the refugee to become corrupted by it. It is a fine thing that of the refugees who have come to this country, only 2½ per cent. have wanted to go back, in spite of their many home and family ties.
Therefore, the message we want to give to Her Majesty's Government is that we are behind them in this matter. We know that there is hope that these children can become useful citizens. We have seen families who have been living in the ghastly slums of these camps. As soon as they are given a decent house—as in the case of slum dwellers in this country—their whole standard of morale has risen, and they have become useful, happy and clean citizens of the country in which they are living. The only question is whether the problem is going to be solved slowly or quickly. The more its solution is prolonged the more difficult it becomes, year by year. The people become more "camp minded", and they are harder to assimilate. Financially the cost would be the same, but the human cost would be far greater. We know that Her Majesty's Government have a record as
572
good as that of the Government of any country. We have seen that British officials have been genuinely sympathetic. We wish the Government well, and hope that they will be able to take a generous and comprehensive line in the Conference which lies ahead.
4.19 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, we have had a clear picture of the details of this problem from the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and we have just had the humanitarian aspect of the refugee problem presented to us very eloquently by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I thought that, in view of my own experience, which was confined to a year's working with the British Red Cross in Germany several years ago when I came in fairly close contact with this displaced persons problem, all I could usefully do would be to present certain principles upon which, as I see it, the United Nations Organisation should develop in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has reminded us that the whole situation at the moment is in the melting pot. This is an important month, with U.N.E.S.C.O. about to consider the future of the United Nations Relief Fund.
As to that future, it seems to me that what we have first to press for is not merely a continuation of that Fund and of the United Nations High Commissioner but for an organisation of permanent standing, just as we have with the Health Organisation, the International Labour Organisation and other agencies of that kind. Some time ago, I think on April 11, there was published in The Times a summary of the whole global situation with regard to the refugees, and it drew attention to the fact that there were no fewer than eleven areas in different parts of the world with refugee problems covering many, many millions, and that situation is going on for generations. So let us, first of all, see that this organisation is here to stay for at least a generation.
Secondly, let us aim at giving it some real executive power. The position of the High Commissioner has been referred to as that of a protector. As I see it, he has to become an executive and an administrator, a power with some authority. In my experience, the awful frustrations and delays that occur, leading to cases of hardship, are due to the fact that the bureaucratic machine in the

573
different countries concerned slows down; it is too lazy, it is too inefficient and it is too disinterested. Therefore, a United Nations organisation should have the power of an inspectorate to travel round the world, to coax and to co-ordinate. It might mean surrender of a certain aspect of sovereignty by various countries. Well, we have all seen the disastrous results of refusal by nations to acknowledge the principle of the need for some small surrender of sovereignty—perhaps the Suez Canal was one example. It seems to me that, if a United Nations authority is to be put into a position of executive power, then perhaps some mild surrender of sovereignty is involved.
Thirdly, it seems to me that we must establish a clear moment when a displaced person ceases to be a refugee and receives the full status of citizenship in the country which is housing him, whether it be in a camp or whether it be in those terrible circumstances which have just been described to us. It is to hasten that process and to be able to lay one's finger on that point when a refugee ceases to be a refugee and is integrated that the United Nations authority needs far more power than it has at present.
Sometimes that may result in hardship and psychological difficulties, particularly when displaced persons have to be pressed to accept the citizenship of a country which they dislike and with which they do not wish to integrate. That has happened over and over again in the case of Germany. But, in the overwhelming number of cases, of course, they cannot return to their countries of origin, and there seems to be no alternative but to be able to press refugees in the last resort into the citizenship of the countries which hold them, in their own interests and most certainly in the interests of their children. To do this, again I insist that someone has to give an order and someone has to be in a position to be able to accept the order and execute it. Something of the military method has to be introduced into the global set-up of the refugee problem in the world.
Lastly, I would draw attention to this point: that the spectacle of homeless humanity after twelve years wandering round the world is a social sore on the whole body politic of Europe, a scourge which has to be removed. The camps as I have seen them—and I am thinking
574
particularly of a camp outside Nuremberg—are breeding grounds for vice, crime and Communism. It is in the interests of the free world to heal that sore; and if healing a sore just means more funds and stepping up a percentage from 7·8 per cent. to 10 per cent. it is money spent in a good cause. Therefore I would press Her Majesty's Government to do all that is possible to see that power, authority and permanence are given to the United Nations Relief Organisation for Refugees; and, in that sense, I most fully support the noble Lord who has brought this Question before your Lordships.
4.25 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, there is one aspect of this tragic problem to which noble Lords so far have not drawn attention. The international bodies which deal with refugees make the strongest criticism of the way in which the Federal Government of Germany has failed to carry out the promises it has made to provide adequate compensation for non-German refugees who have suffered active persecution by the Nazis. Since Germany recovered its sovereign status, Allied Governments have continually pressed it to do so. There is in Germany a Compensation Law, and under that law the position of Stateless, non-Jewish victims is unsatisfactory in two ways, as regards both the law itself and the administration of the law. Treatment of such victims is in shameful contrast to the ease with which ex-Nazis have been able to secure full pensions since the war.
In 1955, under pressure from inside and outside Germany, the Federal Government appointed a working party to revise that law. But the hopes that were aroused by the appointment of that working party have been sadly disappointed. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to give three examples of the many that are available. The first is that of Karol Jurek, a Pole, eighteen years of age when deported to Germany. He put in a claim for injury to health and loss of freedom. He had been arrested in 1940 in the cable works of Cracow, having in his possession radio parts and leaflets directed against the German occupation authorities in Poland. Alter spending some time in Cracow Gestapo Prison, he was sent to

575
the concentration camps of Auschwitz, Flossenburg and Buchenwald. His claim has been rejected, and remains rejected, on the grounds that there was insufficient proof that he was persecuted for his anti-Nazi views. The reason for his arrest was rather that as a Pole he resisted the German occupation forces.
The second example concerns a Pole called Mierzynski, who was deported at the age of sixteen. Whilst engaged in forced labour in Germany he heard from his mother that his father had been arrested in Poland. He was immediately arrested and sent to a concentration camp, where his health was ruined. His claim was rejected because the court held that the authorities were justified in suspecting that he would attempt sabotage in revenge for his father's arrest. There was no evidence whatever of his having done so or of his having expressed any intention to do so.
The last example concerns an elderly Polish lady who before the war was a university professor. She was arrested in 1940 and sent to a concentration camp. She was arrested because all her life she had held liberal opinions wholly antagonistic to the Nazi theories. She had not been a member of any resistance movement. Her claim was rejected. Her arrest was regarded, and is still regarded, as a security measure. She can no longer be helped, for she has since died. I think your Lordships may find in these rejections a hint of the very cynicism of the Nazi party itself, and I hope that the British Government, as part of their negotiations with the Federal Government, will continue to press as strongly as possible for justice in such widespread claims. I feel that our argument would be stronger if, when we receive a direct cry for help or asylum, and that request is refused, an adequate official explanation could immediately be given. It is a matter of pride to us that victims from tyranny turn to the British Isles in expectation of succour and protection.
I hope your Lordships, and in particular my noble friend Lord Denham, will not think that I am leaning too far away from the point if I read a paragraph from The Times of yesterday, which took me somewhat aback when I saw it. It says:
"A man who was rescued after jumping fully clothed from the Yugoslav ship ' Rijeka '…
576
in the English Channel on Friday night was being deported from Britain at the time, an official at the Home Office said on Saturday. The spokesman stated that the man, Dusan Kustudic, was a visitor to Britain in January. Kustudic was refused political asylum and while he was being deported jumped overboard. After being picked up by boatmen from Deal, Kustudic was taken to hospital at Deal."
I believe that, in order to claim asylum in this country, a refugee must prove that, were he to return to his country, he would be killed or imprisoned. That is not always easy, or even possible, to prove, and it seems a somewhat harsh criterion. At a time when so great a part of the population of the world is under some form of oppression, one free country cannot commit itself to the support of all victims who may escape, but I should like to think that this country, which for thirty-three years sheltered Karl Marx, which fed him and fortified him for the work he felt he had to do, would also do its utmost for the subsequent victims of Marxism, as well as for the victims of other oppressive and distorted creeds.
4.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, has reminded us that the reason why this problem of refugees is before us to-day is because of Nazi Germany and the war. If we look at it on that basis, we have reason, if we should ask the question why we should help to aid many of these refugees who are still in the position that they are in Germany at the moment. In the first place, about 1,000 of them were agents for our side in the war; many others were also our allies—they were Poles and Russians who fought with us and were overtaken or deported by the Germans. On the other hand, many others, largely from geographical reasons, fought on the opposing side to us.
If we should ask, however, why these people need help, that is not the full picture any more; because no longer is it a question of the sides in the Second World War. The example that has been given us by the reception of the Hungarian refugees pays tribute enough to that. Rather we have now an international problem, and the democratic Western countries have set themselves to solve it. That, I can only presume, is why the United Nations Refugee Fund was setup, and why it is now not left solely to

577
Germany, the creator of the trouble, to set it all right again. For that reason alone I am quite certain that Her Majesty's Government will not hold back in their support of the United Nations Refugee Fund, for we must be one of the leaders if we find the other democratic States setting themselves to do this task.
I should like rather to pinpoint a few of the instances of what is going on in Germany, out of the wealth of material that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has given us this afternoon, and to ask a few questions of Her Majesty's Government as to what their policy is. The noble Lord has told us about the tuberculosis problem, and he has explained that many countries will not receive a tuberculosis sufferer or even a patient who has now been cured; nor, in that case, will they receive his family—because, of course, he does not want to leave his family and let them go without him. The reason for this has been given as public health, but although, in principle, this is a good idea, I wonder whether the noble Earl who is to reply could tell me whether there is likely to be some relaxation of this rule, for if it is too rigidly applied a great chance of showing ourselves willing to help can be lost.
I will give one instance of this. In 1955, Group Captain Cheshire, V.C., offered six beds free, with all expenses paid, in one of his special tuberculosis sanatoria, for six non-European refugees from Augustdorf in Germany. There was no cost whatsoever to this country; it was merely a question of whether or not we would take them in. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to read a letter that the Home Office sent when this suggestion was brought before them. They said:
"Both the Home Secretary and the Minister of Health have for some time been under considerable Parliamentary and public pressure to prevent persons suffering from tuberculosis from coming to this country. We asked the Ministry of Health for their views on the present proposal but, after considering the matter very carefully, they have now told us that they could not support it. They have reached that conclusion both on grounds of public health and from the medical aspect, and in the circumstances I am afraid the Home Secretary would not feel justified in allowing the Augustdorf patients to be brought over here."
There was a situation where there were available six beds in a special tuberculosis
578
sanatorium. What difference could it have made to the public health of this country whether the inmates of that sanatorium were displaced persons, non-European refugees or English nationals? Could this not have been an example by which Her Majesty's Government could have shown that, although in general they do not want public health to deteriorate through tubercular patients coming into this country, at least if a suitable opportunity presented itself they could give way and relent from the strictness of the rule?
That, of course, is purely an internal affair. But there is another point on which I should like to hear Her Majesty's Government's views, and to ask if they could make a suggestion to the conference which meets shortly. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has told how keen the High Commissioner is that the method of help towards these non-European refugees should be in the form of self-help. This is an admirable idea. Those who are left behind, whose occupations and skills are not on the quotas required by receiving countries, or who are tubercular or sick, are left in Germany. The Integration Council has the job to place them in certain employments or, otherwise, to keep them on public funds or United Nations funds.
In order to help place them in employment there exists a fund called the Small Loans Fund, which comes from United Nations money. There is, however, a rule of this Fund that 20 per cent. of the grant must come from German sources. What this means in practice is that the 20 per cent. has to be supplied by the refugee who is to receive the grant. As your Lordships will imagine, this is not easy for him to do. The result is that he lives at his camp and, while he is there unemployed, he is given food, a certain weekly allowance and a certain amount of attention. If he applies for a job in order to earn the 20 per cent. grant, so as to get himself a new skill, and thus become a desirable member of the community, he must go and work outside the camp in whatever job the Integration Council temporarily can find for him. These jobs are very hard and seasonal. Frequently they entail travel far from the camp, and putting up for a certain proportion of the time in a town that is also far away. He has to meet

579
out of his own pocket all the expense of this. At the same time, assuming that he is the kind of man who is not wanted abroad for his skill, it is clearly not the kind of work for which he himself is fitted, after perhaps twelve years in a camp. Nor is it work to which he is accustomed.
In addition, if the man earns money from this work his camp grant is proportionately reduced, so that in the long run he is no better off. If, in spite of the hardness of the work, he decides that he would still like to train, he still cannot produce the 20 per cent. grant, for if he earns money he loses his camp grant. The easiest thing, therefore, is for him to go back to the old lethargy and to exist on public funds. I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government that perhaps this 20 per cent. grant is more a hindrance than an encouragement to anyone. If there were no grant, then United Nations funds might have to provide more money, which would mean that they would be able to help fewer refugees; but at least they would be able really to help them. For unless a Church or other voluntary organisation supplies money, these small loans are not available at the moment for refugees who cannot provide the 20 per cent. Could not Her Majesty's Government suggest that where German sources—that is, the refugees—cannot themselves supply money, the 20 per cent. grant should not be demanded of them? I hope that it may be possible to adopt that suggestion.
In general, like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will support first the closing of the camps and, secondly, a prolonged programme for the refugees. If they support the closing of the camps and help to make up the shortfall of money and the extra still needed, they will, I believe, have done something which is all too seldom done these days, in that the United Nations Special Agency will have achieved what it set out to do. All too often to-day, the United Nations is spoken of in derogatory or critical language. Here, for once, is a chance for Her Majesty's Government to encourage the United Nations to do a job for which it was expressly intended, and, by prolonging the programme to complete the final task (though that is a
580
considerable job), of clearing up the whole trouble. If that were to be done, it would be a triumph, in that the United Nations would have grasped and resolved a problem which was the result of international tension. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will not miss this chance. The United Nations Refugee Fund have given the High Commissioner authority to spend 50,000 dollars on a survey of refugees, both in and out of camps, and the report will be ready soon. Will Her Majesty's Government take the opportunity given by the survey to press forward with a solution of this problem? I sincerely hope that they will, and I trust that the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to tell me so.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I should like most heartily to congratulate the noble Lord who moved this Motion, on his most thoughtful and informed speech. We were left in no doubt that he spoke from very real knowledge of the subject and, moreover, from a practical knowledge which most of us in this House lack. He left us in no doubt about the extreme complexity of the subject. He reminded us that it is a subject not susceptible of the usual publicity treatment upon which other causes can call. In this mid-twentieth century people think all too seldom of this refugee problem. It is only when there is some major catastrophe, such as that in Hungary last year, that public imagination is stirred. Then the result is seen in the enormous outpouring of generosity in this and many other countries; but in general the plight of these enormous numbers of refugees hardly bears thinking about.
If there was one complaint I would make on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, it is that he concentrated upon a certain sector of the whole refugee problem. We should not like it to be thought that the 218,000 unsettled refugees in Germany represent the total refugee problem. The noble Lord made it clear that he was speaking of non-German refugees, but I feel that noble Lords should be reminded that 30 million is the estimate commonly given of the number of refugees in all the continents of the world to-day. There is an independent United Nations body concerning itself with Middle Eastern refugees—the

581
United Nations Relief and Works Agency. But the High Commisioner for Refugees has a far wider task than the figures quoted would lead us to believe, for let us not forget that the number of refugees for whom he is responsible is 400,000, situated for the most part certainly in Germany and Austria, but also in Greece and Italy. So let us keep this problem in perspective and realise that what Her Majesty's Government are doing and will do here is directed only to this one limited sector of the problem.
The noble Lord's request to Her Majesty's Government, in part at any rate, is to provide more money. It is easy to forecast that the Minister will point out that there are many other competing claims for grants from the Government. There will be sections of public opinion and the Press who will leave us in no doubt as to what they think about contributions to any international object. In fact, your Lordships may remember that only a few weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, asked a Question in this House: What was the total cost of membership of all the international organisations to which this country has subscribed? The figure, so far as refugees were concerned, was £1,900,000 for the Middle Eastern refugees and £80,000 (which has since been raised to £100,000) for the United Nations Refugee Fund. I would ask Her Majesty's Government not to be alarmed by certain expressions of disapproval. They need think only of the public response to the Lord Mayor's appeal for Hungarians last year, when in a matter of a few weeks £2,500,000 was subscribed from private funds. I cannot believe that the public which will subscribe as generously as that on one occasion will complain that the taxpayer is being called upon to put up another £50,000 or £100,000 to solve this refugee question.
In passing, I think that a great deal depends on the presentation of the subject and on public relations. We know that there is a right honourable gentleman whose business it is to look after the public relations of the Government. Here is a case where a really skilful and imaginative publicity campaign—and not even a campaign; a mere presentation of the facts would suffice—would certainly get a response, and Her Majesty's
582
Government would be in no danger of further unpopularity as a result of increasing slightly their contribution to this cause. We must remember also that the United Nations Refugee Fund follows very rigid principles in applying its aid. Those responsible for the Fund insist on participation by some local funds, and they insist on co-operation in carrying out settlement through voluntary bodies and others of all sorts. Let us also have it on the record, lest there be any more talk about a swollen and overpaid United Nations staff, that the total office staff of the High Commissioner is 130—and that covers the headquarters office and fourteen branch offices. So I think we can be sure that no money is being wasted in these directions.
Apart from finance, the other way in which this country can help is by opening our doors to further immigration. I know that the Home Office have very rigid rules in this connection. In fact, the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in another place:
"All Governments have maintained the principle that we cannot allow mass immigration without careful individual scrutiny."
That is all very well as a general principle. But how careful was the individual scrutiny last autumn, when Hungarian refugees were coming over? Her Majesty's Government, with extraordinary generosity, have admitted something between 18,000 and 20,000 Hungarian immigrants into this country; and no one will say that they have been wrong. But do let us think at the same time of these 400,000 other refugees, who have been years in camps—one noble Lord said I think, that the average period was eight years. Let us remember those people who are rotting in camps all over Europe and, to some extent, the rest of the world.
Her Majesty's Government have in past years had a good record of immigration. Let us not forget that since the war we have absorbed 120,000 Poles and their families. We took voluntary workers in the early days from the refugee camps, 2,000 Czechs from Prague in 1948; and since then we have taken about 1,600 of the other refugees. Now 1,600 is not a large number. We are, I think, contrary to the general belief, losing every year in population by migration movements. More people are leaving this

583
country than are coming in by something like 50,000 a year. It is difficult to think that we can say honestly that we could not admit another few hundreds or few thousands of these unfortunate people. And, of course, if we do, we must (as we urge upon the Commonwealth countries to which migrants go) take a balanced section of the population, and not all the young and fit people. We must take a proportion of the old and infirm. That, of course, would help also.
Taking it all round, however, the problem is far too big for one country to deal with, either financially or in the matter of settlement of refugees. The 16 million dollars of which we have heard will, unfortunately, be only 13,300,000 dollars, and that shortfall is going to make a difference of some 7000 refugees. If the full amount had been available, 43,000 refugees could have been permanently settled by the end of 1958. As it is, with the shortfall, only 36,000 will be so settled—a difference of 7,000. And what would that difference of those few million dollars amount to, spread over a considerable number of countries?
Unfortunately, only seventeen countries appear to be contributing regularly to the United Nations Refugee Fund. It is a conspicuous fact that none of the Iron Curtain countries is contributing. And none of the Asian countries is contributing—though perhaps it is permissible to say that the Asian countries have their own refugee problems on a scale compared to which this one is a minor affair. But it is by the international policy of Her Majesty's Government, and the influence which Her Majesty's Government can exert in United Nations and in the Refugee Fund Committee, that the only hope lies, as I see it, of getting a satisfactory solution of this problem.
I think it is open to doubt whether, as a method of persuasion, a conditional offer is the best one. Her Majesty's Government, your Lordships will remember, made their contribution £80,000 for 1956 and 1957, but promised another £20,000 if the total reached £3¼ million—I think these are the correct figures. Certainly, the offer was conditional on other countries subscribing more. Whether that is the best method is an open question, but I am sure that the
584
whole influence of Her Majesty's Government ought to go towards the objects which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, outlined so clearly and argued so persuasively—namely, that the High Commissioner's Office and the Fund should be extended so as to permit the whole problem to be accessible to them.
Before I sit down, I should like to mention the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for a permanent organisation. I believe that there is a great deal to be said for making the organisation for refugees permanent, but whether it would be wise to go as far as the noble Lord suggested, and make this a body with executive powers and powers of inspection in other countries, raises a big question. It seems to me that it would be a pity to spoil the chance of getting a workable arrangement for the next few years in the hope of the first step of a supranational inspection. That is the ultimate solution we all hope for, but at the moment I feel there is remarkably little sign of readiness to agree to international control, and I suggest that if Her Majesty's Government get another four or ten years' extension of the Fund, they will have done well. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give a satisfactory answer to the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
5.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Denham for the able and informed way in which he made his points in regard to the Question which he has put on the Order Paper, and I thank also those other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and who have contributed so knowledgeably to it.
The Mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, by which I mean his general responsibility under a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly for the international protection of refugees, is due to expire at the end of 1958. The Refugee Fund, whose establishment was also authorised by the General Assembly for the purpose of financing a four-year resettlement programme for refugees, is likewise due to be wound up at the end of 1958. My right honourable friend the Foreign

585
Secretary has been giving considerable thought to the future policy of Her Majesty's Government on both these questions.
So far as the High Commissioner's protective Mandate is concerned, so long as authoritarian régimes exist the refugee problem can rarely be static. The influx of refugees into the democratic countries of Western Europe, which assumed major proportions at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, has continued in one form or another until the present day. The recent events in Hungary attracted the sympathy of the whole free world for the Hungarian refugees. But other groups of refugees have been arriving in Western Europe during the last decade, and the course of events in Europe at present gives little reason to believe that the movement of refugees from East to West will cease at an early date.
Her Majesty's Government are, therefore, in no doubt as to the need for a prolongation of the High Commissioner's protective Mandate. There are already well over a million people who possess refugee status as defined in the Mandate. The majority of these people are not in need so much of material assistance from international resources; but so long as they have no claim upon any Government, save upon that Government whose actions provoked their flight in the first place, it is clearly desirable that a United Nations authority should continue to be responsible for their interests.
When the General Assembly meets later this year Her Majesty's Government will instruct their representative at the United Nations to vote in favour of an extension of the High Commissioner's Mandate for a further period of five years. It may be felt that this period is not long enough; but I understand that the majority of the members of the High Commissioner's Executive Committee favour such a period and it is, I think, only right that member Governments of the United Nations should have the opportunity to re-examine from time to time the character and scope of the refugee problem.
The future of the High Commissioner's four-year resettlement programme is a serious and difficult problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Denham, mentioned, on June 5 the High Commissioner
586
informed his Executive Committee, then in session in Geneva, that in his view the original Refugee Fund budget of 16 million dollars, on which he expects a shortfall in contributions amounting to 2·7 million dollars by the end of 1958, would not, even if fully subscribed, suffice to provide for the emptying of the remaining refugee camps in Europe. He has proposed that the Refugee Fund budget should be increased to 20·8 million dollars, and that as much of the additional sum as possible—namely, 7·5 million dollars, including the shortfall I have mentioned—should be subscribed in 1958 to enable him to intensify the programme in the hope of concluding his work in the camps by the end of 1960. I can only say at present that the High Commissioner's proposals are receiving Her Majesly's Government's sympathetic—most sympathetic—attention.
I do not think that I need recount to-day all that Her Majesty's Government have done for refugees in the past, both by way of affording asylum in this country and by way of financial contributions to the various organisations which have had to contend with the refugee problem since the end of the war. But in recent years Her Majesty's Government have made available considerable sums, not only for the United Nations Refugee Fund, to which they have already contributed £260,000, but also to other United Nations agencies such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees and the United Nations Fund for Children. This, moreover, takes no account of the recent additional expenditure incurred, and willingly incurred, on behalf of Hungarian refugees. A sum of £338,000 has been committed by Her Majesty's Government at home and abroad on behalf of these Hungarian refugees, and there will be a rise in expenditure inside the United Kingdom when the voluntary funds at present used to finance the resettlement of Hungarians in this country are exhausted.
I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will go as far as they can towards meeting the requirements of the High Commissioner, taking into account their other and extensive commitments. Certainly Her Majesty's Government have full confidence in the present High Commissioner, Dr. Lindt, and have already been greatly impressed by the energy and

587
skill with which he has undertaken his difficult task.
I am aware that the High Commissioner's proposals would have the effect of concentrating the efforts of his office on refugees in camps, and that this in turn raises two important questions so far as refugees in Austria and Germany are concerned. The High Commissioner has estimated that by the end of 1958 there will be 5,000 refugees still living in camps in Austria, of whom some 3,000 may be of German ethnic origin. It might therefore be argued that a concentrated effort to clear the camps in Austria could only result in assisting a large number of refugees whose race and associations provide them with many advantages, at the expense of foreign refugees living outside camps.
Her Majesty's Government have had this question very much in mind. Indeed, at the last meeting of the High Commissioner's Executive Committee the United Kingdom delegate sought an assurance that the projects tabled by the High Commissioner for 1958 on behalf of German ethnic refugees were fully justified. At the same time, I do not think that such refugees could be denied assistance from the Refugee Fund in cases where it is clear that such assistance is necessary. Her Majesty's Government are therefore prepared to accept the need to clear the camps of refugees of German race, as well as foreign refugees, in the interests of bringing about the closure of these distressing institutions.
Noble Lords are clearly disturbed by the position of refugees living outside camps in Germany. Her Majesty's Government share their concern. When the High Commissioner's programme was begun two and a half years ago it was hoped that the expanding economy of Germany would lead to the rapid integration of many of these refugees. Alas! this hope has not been borne out by events, and the High Commissioner has proposed that his allocation for Germany in 1958 should be increased from the 1957 figure of 762,000 dollars to 1,600,000 dollars. Her Majesty's Government have willingly concurred in this proposal. Furthermore, the High Commissioner has proposed that a special
588
survey be undertaken of non-settled refugees in the principal countries of residence. Her Majesty's Government have concurred in this proposal and will study the results with some care. But I think I should make it clear that Her Majesty's Government consider that the countries of residence, including Germany, must sooner or later assume full responsibility for the refugees in their territory.
Although the German Government have had to contend in recent years with the influx of many thousands of Germans from East Germany and elsewhere, they must expect also to assume an increasing degree of responsibility for the foreign refugees within their borders. Her Majesty's Government certainly hope that the increased allocation for Germany which will be made available from the Refugee Fund in 1958, will, with the co-operation of the German authorities, be used to the utmost advantage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, asked me two questions which I would gladly answer. But as your Lordships know, this is not a debate, but an Unstarred Question. As the noble Viscount was unable to give me advance notice of these two questions, I regret that I cannot answer him at the moment, although I will do so at a later date. I will also bring those questions to the attention of the Ministers concerned. This applies, too, to one of the questions asked of me by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, about making the refugee organisation permanent is one that I am completely unable to answer at this point. One can only hope that there will be no occasion to have any permanent refugee organisation. We assume that the world eventually will become a better place.
As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, about the instructions to the representative of Her Majesty's Government at the coming Conference, I am afraid I can only tell the noble Lord that those instructions have not yet been finalised. However, I can say that the views expressed to-day by your Lordships will be of great value to Her Majesty's Government and will be taken fully into account when those instructions are in fact issued.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
UNIVERSITY OF EXETER BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.