UNITED NATIONS CONTRIBUTIONS (Hansard, 29 November 1961)

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME)
My Lords, this Question has been asked in such a form as makes it almost impossible to give a reasonably short answer, and the House might have wished me to say that I would circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT with the noble Lord's leave; but I was not anxious to do that without warning, so I have done my best with a short reply.
The answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is that the cost of our commitments to the United Nations in 1961 is about £10,200,000. This comprises mandatory contributions to the regular budget, of £1,910,000; to the United Nations operations in the Congo of £2,750,000; and to the United Nations force patrolling the Egypt/Israel border of £520,700. Our assessment is 7.78 per cent. of the cost of each, and that is so for special operations like the Congo. We consider payment a binding obligation imposed upon all member States by their signature of the United Nations Charter. The figure of about £10,200,000 also includes Her Majesty's Government's voluntary contributions to the United Nations technical assistance and relief funds, which amount to £5,280,000. As to the second part of the Question, the monthly cost to the United Nations of operations in the Congo during 1961 is estimated at about £3,570,000.
As to the third part of the Question, some 87 members of the United Nations are in arrears with their mandatory contributions. Details are given in United Nations document ST/ADM/SER.B/151, which is available in the Library of the House. No member is so far in arrears as to be disqualified from voting. On the last part of the noble Lord's Question, I do not propose to seek the special authority of Parliament for our assessed share of the future costs of these operations, since it has the opportunity to examine and debate such 1125 expenditure during the normal consideration of the Estimates.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, have I understood the noble Earl correctly in that the cost of the present military operations in the Congo is £3 million per month? Is that correct?

THE EARL OF HOME
Yes, that is nearly correct. The cost per month to the United Nations as a whole is £3,570,000.

§ LORD BARNBY
Would our percentage of that be similar to the percentage the noble Earl stated previously?

THE EARL OF HOME
Our percentage of that, my Lords, is a similar percentage—namely, 7.78 per cent.

§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE
My Lords, while subscribing to the view that we must properly pay drafts which are part of an engagement or a regular contribution related to our membership, would my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government consider whether we are getting our money's worth in various parts of the world? Is it not obvious that the art of government and of the conduct of military operations is one which requires great skill and knowledge, of which, at present, the United Nations has not the advantage?

THE EARL OF HOME
My Lords, this does seem terribly expensive for the results we get; and yet, if we want to see a world in which there is co-operation and a world organisation which will help to that end, we must surely support the United Nations financially as well as in other ways so long as there is a hope of achieving that object. If in any case the United Nations were taking action which was not contributing to the peace of the world and to the prospects of peace, then I should feel bound to advise the Government and Parliament that we should review our present practices. But, my Lords, I think that the House will feel—I hope that the House will feel—that, so long as there is a chance that the peace-keeping machinery of the United Nations can in fact help to keep the peace, so long should the United Kingdom support it.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Hear, hear!

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH
My Lords, it is quite evident that the House generally agrees with the principles which have been enunciated by the Foreign Secretary. Could he tell us, in view of the extraordinary percentage of countries in arrear—I think he said 87 per cent.—

THE EARL OF HOME
No; 82 per cent.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
—whether any special consideration has been given by the United Nations Organisation itself to this matter, as to whether some settlement could be come to with special reference to which of the 82 per cent. in arrear are able to pay and which are not?

THE EARL OF HOME
My Lords, this very complex and difficult matter is being considered now by the Fifth Committee of the United Nations, on which the United Kingdom is represented, and the Fifth Committee will in due course make a report to the Secretary-General and to the Assembly. They will have to recommend ways and means by which this deficit in the United Nation's finances may be met. I have no doubt that when this has been done, in the matter of a few weeks Her Majesty's Government will have something to say in the United Nations, and also I shall have something to say to the House, because this is a most serious problem which cannot be allowed to continue.

§ LORD KILLEARN
My Lords, the point I was going to raise has been largely covered by the Leader of the Opposition. It was to ask the noble Earl whether he could tell the House what happens to a defaulter in his dues, and the question of his right to vote? Is that affected at all?

THE EARL OF HOME
My Lords, if a member country of the United Nations falls two years behind in its subscriptions, then that member is disqualified from voting; but no member of the United Nations has so far fallen two years behind.