UN Development Programme: UK Contributions (Hansard, 17 November 1983)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, our cash contribution to the United Nations Development Programme was £25 million in 1978 and £185 million in both 1982 and 1983. At the annual United Nations Pledging Conference on 8th November, we announced that United Kingdom contribution to UNDP for 1984 would be £19 million. The precise amounts in real terms depend upon which technical definition of inflation is taken, but the earlier figures do of course show a decline. That is why our policy of reducing inflation is so important and why, happily, this problem should be much less marked in future years.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether it is not a fact that British contributions to the UNDP have been reduced by 56 per cent, in real terms since 1978, which is four times the overall reduction in overseas aid? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the case that there are now one-third fewer specialists employed by the UNDP than there were in 1979? Finally, in view of the last figures he gave, is the noble Lord telling the House that funds for this year will be, broadly speaking, the same as for last year, which in real terms is a reduction?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is the case that there has been a real decline in the amount of our contribution to this particular programme. We remain a major contributor among those who do make funds available. The Government's policy has been to give greater priority to bilateral aid and, in general, for our contributions to multilateral agencies to reflect more closely our economic strength. That consideration has been reflected in the amount we have been able to make available to this particular programme. As to the second point made by the noble Lord about there being fewer specialists and others employed, I am afraid it was the case that the UNDP devised some 1370 programmes which were most unlikely to have been met in the light of the money which the programme expected to receive in terms of total funds, and thus some cutback has, I fear, been inevitable.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, to what extent are we able to follow those contributions and see what goes into real development and what simply goes into what seems to be an endemic African process of making the rich richer and the poor poorer?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, generally speaking, we have a good deal of admiration for the work of the UNDP. We have some reservations from time to time, but the work the UNDP does is good, and we should like to contribute to it as much as we can within the resources that we can make available.

Lord Paget of Northampton
But it is not possible to see that work, my Lords.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he really thinks that this contribution is adequate in view of the fact that 30 million people die every year from hunger and from a lack of medical supplies? Will the noble Lord not urge upon his right honourable friend that these contributions should be increased in order, perhaps, to salve even our own consciences when this human disaster is taking place?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, nobody pretends that the UNDP by itself, less still our contribution to it, will solve the problems to which the noble Lord has referred. But perhaps they need to be considered in the context of our total aid budget, which exceeds £ 1,000 million.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, did the noble Lord the Minister read those aspects of the Brandt Report and the recommendations which suggested that if we can raise living standards in such parts of the world we shall get rid of some of the tensions which cause us to spend more on negative forms of defence? That would be positive defence rather than negative defence, and is that not an aspect that the Government should consider in their defence policy?

§ Lord Trefgarne
That is one point of view, my Lords, and a perfectly respectable point of view. But the fact of the matter is that the Brandt Commission was not so clear as to where the large resources for which it called were to come from.

§ Lord Bauer
My Lords, will my noble friend Lord Trefgarne please inform the House whether the Government regard as sacrosanct participation in the UNDP, remembering that at the height of the Falklands war the programme substantially helped Argentina in face of the unavailing protest of the United Kingdom representative? Is it not the case that under this programme the United Kingdom has no right to veto spending, even expenditure directly detrimental to Britain?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, neither the United Kingdom nor any other member of the UNDP has the 1371 power of veto; nor can we as donors attach special conditions to our contributions. It is a general principle in multi-lateral aid institutions that political considerations should not enter into their decision-making. The programme for Argentina was approved by the UNDP governing council despite United Kingdom objections because the majority of members were in favour of it. Nevertheless, as I have explained already we contribute to UNDP because we believe it to be an efficient and effective channel for multilateral technical co-operation.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, may I refer the noble Lord the Minister back to the second answer he gave to my supplementary, concerning the relationship between funding the UNDP and our weak economic position? Is it not the case that we receive back in orders and in fees for training a great deal more money that we contribute to the UNDP? Is it not the case that the rest of our aid is especially monitored through the activities of the UNDP and therefore becomes more effective? Finally, is it not the case that many members of the industrial world, who are also in a world depression—and I could read out a list of them—are increasing their contributions to the UNDP while the British Government are reducing theirs?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, there is no connection between the size of contribution from a particular country and the amount of money spent in that country by the UNDP. There is a large proportion of UNDP funds spent in the United Kingdom. The reason why there is such a large proportion is because we can offer the services required and offer good value for money.

Lord Oram
My Lords, at the Commonwealth Conference which Her Majesty the Queen is about to open in New Delhi, are we not likely to be faced once again with third world members of the Commonwealth highly critical of our declining aid programme? Would our influence in the Commonwealth forum not be greatly improved if we took a more positive attitude to such questions as the UNDP?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, doubtless there will be some people who think we ought to give more, but the fact is that we must cut our coat according to our cloth. If we were to provide a greatly excessive aid programme, like the one foreshadowed when we came into office, we would soon find ourselves beggared and not able to afford anything.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is this not investment rather than giving?