REFUGEES, DISASTERS AND INTERNATIONAL AID

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, we all regret, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was unable to move this Motion. We regret it because he has moved Motions on this subject repeatedly, and we all know he is a long-standing, enthusiastic supporter of refugee work. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that he could have found 1246 no more able and eloquent substitute than the noble Baroness. Her speech not only showed great sympathy for refugees but displayed her wide knowledge, from personal experience, of the work being done for refugees, both in this country and in other parts of the world.

I am particularly grateful to noble Lords and Ladies opposite, if I may regard the initiative as being a joint one, for drawing your Lordships' attention to this problem, because this country has a high reputation to maintain, a reputation second to none in the world, in regard to its concern for refugees. We can all take pride in the fact that the idea of World Refugee Year was conceived here, that we were the largest donor among the nations that contributed, and that our contribution was nearly half the total sum received from all over the world by the United Nations High Commissioner from private sources.

We cannot rest on our laurels without losing them. Memories are short, and four years have passed since World Refugee Year and we need to be reminded. For that reason, we are most grateful for the initiative that has been taken on the other side of the House. But, in spite of all that has been done by voluntary societies, such as the organisation to combat world hunger and the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, and in spite of all that Governments have done through the United Nations in the years since the war, these destitute and homeless people are still with us in their thousands and, having no country of their own to turn to, they must still rely for their very existence on the good will of ordinary people like ourselves all over the world.

The refugee problem is not only just as serious as it has ever been in the past, including the years immediately after the last world war, but it is just as certain, I feel, to be with us for a very long time. The stream of refugees would go on flowing, even if every refugee in every country to-day could be resettled with a home and a job immediately. So long as we have big wars, small wars, civil wars and racial, religious or political persecution, we shall have their victims escaping to safety wherever they can find refuge.

1247 I am sure that this debate will serve a very useful purpose if it does two things: if it reminds the British public of the extent and urgency of the refugee problem, and if it convinces the Government that Members of your Lordships' House, on both sides and in all quarters, are anxious that they should not relax the efforts they have made on behalf of refugees and in certain directions should do rather more than they are doing at the present time. After all, refugees have certain disadvantages. They have no votes, and Parliamentary time is much more fully occupied by Government Business in another place. Therefore, surely this is one of the occasions when your Lordships' House is performing its most useful function, when it can supplement what is being done elsewhere without repeating it.

What is the broad picture of the refugee situation to-day? Although I admit that I have much less skill in drawing it than has the noble Baroness, I think that she will agree with me—though I hope that she will say so if she does not—that in Europe there has been a very substantial improvement since the war. In Asia Minor, the situation will regard to Arab refugees is still very serious indeed. In Asia, there are some bad patches, to which the noble Baroness referred. But I believe the greatest deterioration has taken place, and is still taking place, in Africa. In this respect, my view is supported by the fact that the High Commissioner for Refugees, in budgeting for the current year, has budgeted to spend more in Africa than in any other continent.

In our last Foreign Affairs debate, I ventured to draw your lordships' attention to the most burning refugee problem in Africa—the plight of the Tutsi tribe, who have fled from Rwanda to neighbouring countries in that part of Africa. I am not going to weary your Lordships by repeating what I said then. I would only give some figures, which I think are the latest figures, to show the size of this problem and how many people are involved. There are, I believe, 42,000 of these Tutsi refugees in Burundi, 12,000 in Tanganyika, 36,000 in Uganda and 60,000 in the Kivu province of the Congo.

Those are very rough figures. It is always difficult to count anything very 1248 accurately in Africa, and the counting of refugees is one of the more difficult statistical exercises, which would be difficult in any country. But to take the rough total, there are 150,000 homeless and destitute people who have taken refuge in neighbouring countries, which are themselves extremely poor. Of course, the African Governments in these countries are doing their best to assist, but they cannot really cope single-handed with this vast influx of destitute neighbours. The United Nations need funds for immediate relief and resettlement very urgently. They are the only source of assistance to which these people can turn.

I very much hope that the Government will regard this refugee situation in Central Africa as an emergency situation, and will make a special contribution to the work of the United Nations in relation to the Rwanda refugees, apart from their annual contribution to the High Commission. I would make one reference to the annual contribution of Her Majesty's Government, following the footsteps of the noble Baroness. I believe that the annual contribution for 1964 has not yet been decided, so that perhaps this is a particularly appropriate moment. I understand that we gave £200,000 last year and £100,000 the year before. I should like to think—and I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me—that at a time when our national income is expanding, as it is, we should spare a small fraction of this increase for the benefit of those people outside our own country who are in greatest need. And the need of none is greater than that of refugees. I hope that whatever the Government decide to give will be worthy of the traditional British attitude to refugees and will show that this, at any rate, is a field in which Britain can still lead the world.

I am particularly glad that the noble Baroness, with her experience of the Middle East, has drawn our attention to the fine work of the United Nations Relief and Works Organisation for the Arab refugees who came originally from Palestine. The noble Baroness avoided the political issue and I will not comment on it, but we are bound to recognise the political situation as a matter of fact. We are bound to recognise that relations between Jews and Arabs make it most unlikely that we shall be able 1249 to find a political solution, and most likely that about 1 million Arabs will still continue to be unable either to return to Israel or to settle permanently on Arab soil.

I endorse most wholeheartedly the plea made by the noble Baroness that the Government should ask the United Nations to renew the mandate of this invaluable Agency when it expires next year. I also hope that the renewed mandate will be not for a short period of time, but for a period of not less than five years. I am very glad that the noble Baroness made that point, because I think it is an extremely important one. Without having a reasonable period of time, it is quite impossible for an Agency of this kind to do the forward planning that is needed, both to serve the refugees and to make the most economical use of the funds with which they are entrusted.

I should like to turn now from the general problem (I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do this, but I think that at any rate I shall be saying something that is not likely to be said by anyone else, difficult though this is in a debate of this kind) to a particular aspect of the refugee problem, not by any means the most important—I admit that straight away—but of special importance to this country and the Commonwealth. I refer to the problem of political refugees who come to this country from Commonwealth countries. Their position at the moment is highly unsatisfactory. It conflicts with one of the traditional freedoms of this country—namely, the right of political refugees from other countries to asylum here; that is to say, to freedom from persecution as long as they are on British soil.

A principle in which we all believe is that a man should not be sent back to his own country if he is wanted for a political offence, provided that he refrains from political activity directed at his own Government while he is in this country. I need hardly remind your Lordships that our reputation for freedom in the nineteenth century was largely due to the fact that we gave asylum to political refugees from all the European despotisms. They came here; they claimed the right of asylum, and we gave it to them. In this century, writers, scientists and ordinary people flocked to this country from the rule of 1250 Hitler and of Mussolini, and many of them are living here still. This is a great British tradition. But we are in danger of losing it, because we have failed to alter our law so as to give the citizens of Commonwealth countries the same right of asylum as foreigners.

To illustrate this proposition, I should like to remind your Lordships of the case of Chief Enahoro, which was of such importance—and it shows the strength of British public opinion on this matter—that just about a year ago it occupied discussion in another place for four days. Perhaps I may be allowed briefly to recapitulate the facts of the case. Chief Enahoro was wanted by the Nigerian Government for a political offence. Her Majesty's Government decided to extradite him because, being a citizen of a Commonwealth country, he did not have the right of asylum under British law which foreigners have. If he had been a foreigner he would have had a right of asylum here. Since his extradition he has been convicted by the Nigerian courts and is now serving a long prison sentence.

Her Majesty's Government had a very strong case in law. Their contention, which I think no one denied, was that under the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, there was no provision prohibiting the return of a fugitive from any British territory or Commonwealth country if the offence with which he was to be charged was a political one. There is no such provision in that Act. What the Act does is to give the courts in this country, and the Home Secretary, the right to exercise their discretion in the case of a man charged with a political offence. What they have to do is to decide whether a man will have a fair trial and not receive an inhuman or unjustly severe sentence if he is sent back; that is to say, if he is extradited, whether he will be treated in what we regard as a humane and reasonable manner.

This means that the law, as it stands, obliges British courts and British Ministers to pass judgment on the administration of justice in Commonwealth countries. I cannot imagine anything more damaging to Commonwealth relations than a position of this kind. Of course, this is exactly what happened in the case of Chief Enahoro. This discretionary provision of the existing law 1251 is surely another powerful argument in favour of revising the law. An unfavourable judgment—if Her Majesty's Government had taken the opposite view in this case—would do unheard of damage to our relations with the Commonwealth country concerned. I cannot help wondering whether, if the Enahoro case had gone against the Nigerian Government, Nigeria might have left the Commonwealth, and we should thereby have lost the largest, most powerful and influential country in Africa. So long as the law remains unchanged we are placed on the horns of an intolerable dilemma whenever a Commonwealth country applies in our courts for the release of a political offender. We have the choice either to surrender our proud tradition of political asylum, or to offer a gross afront to one of our Commonwealth friends and neighbours.

This is not a theoretical asylum. It cannot be said that because no case has cropped up in the last year it will not happen again. This sort of thing may confront us again at any moment. We are all aware that the system of government in some of the new Commonwealth countries has already resulted in opponents of the ruling party seeking refuge abroad and being afraid to go home. So long as the law remains unchanged, another Enahoro case, with its inevitable consequences both for British public opinion and for the Commonwealth, could crop up to-morrow.

Her Majesty's Government agree that the law, as it stands, is unsatisfactory and that some alteration should be made. But the point that was made when this matter was debated a year ago was that nothing should be done without consultation with Commonwealth countries; and, of course, we should entirely agree with that. I will not weary your Lordships with an extract from the record of what the former Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, said in the debate, but I know the noble Earl opposite will agree that he gave the undertaking that Commonwealth countries would be consulted immediately with a view to getting their agreement to some alteration in the law. This is absolutely the right procedure.

We are just as anxious as the Government that Commonwealth countries 1252 should agree with whatever we want to do. But it was just over a year ago that the former Prime Minister said he would start discussions with other Commonwealth Governments. Three weeks ago I asked the Government whether these discussions had been brought to a conclusion, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, told me that they were still going on. It seems almost unbelievable that our High Commissioners in Commonwealth countries, who received their instructions about a year ago, should still be unable to ascertain views, one way or the other, of the Commonwealth Governments to which they are accredited. I can only say that it shows that the Government have no sense of the urgency of completing these discussions.

These things can be done quickly. When my noble friend Lord Attlee was Prime Minister, we completed the discussions with the Government of India, which resulted in the division of British India between India and Pakistan, and an independent Constitution for these two new countries, within four months. Where there's a will, there's a way. What is lacking in the present Government and the present Prime Minister is the will to see this thing through. I really do not know—at least, so far as my knowledge of what has happened recently goes—any worse example of the weakness and ineptitude of the present Government than their failure after this long period of time to bring these discussions to a conclusion.

What I would suggest, if the Government are still bogged down in these discussions at an official level, is that when the Prime Ministers' Conference takes place in July they should take the initiative in putting this matter on the Conference Agenda. I should like the noble Earl to reply to this question, if he will, at the end of the debate. I have not given him notice, and I do not suggest he should answer it immediately, but he will have an opportunity between now and the end of the debate to consult his advisers. I am sure that if in the end we find that other Commonwealth countries do not agree, they will appreciate our right to legislate, without their concurrence, on any matter we consider equitable and in the best interests of the Commonwealth. That is exactly what 1253 they would expect to do if in our position.

I very much hope that in raising this British aspect, and only a limited aspect, of the refugee problem I have not given the House the impression of losing sight of the wood for the trees. That was not at all my intention. My main plea to the Government is exactly the same as the plea made by the noble Baroness, that the Government should treat the refugees with a statesmanlike policy, and a generous policy at the same time.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I hope to make a few winding-up remarks at the end of this debate, and I rise now for only a few moments so that I may give an immediate reply to the question about the Charity Commissioners which my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood raised towards the end of her speech, because I thought it might economise time and perhaps be helpful to some of your Lordships who were going to speak if the Government's view about this matter could be stated early in the debate.

Some of the voluntary organisations which Lady Elliot of Harwood has in mind have expressed concern that the charitable nature of their activities may be questioned as a matter of law. From the Government's point of view, we think it is very important that the springs of charity, which are very wide and deep in this country, should not be impeded by any needless apprehension about the rigidity of the law on this matter. Charity law in England and Wales has evolved over a great many years, and I think its principles are widely understood. But, of course, the application of those principles to particular circumstances may sometimes pose questions of some difficulty. It would not be right for a Minister to make pronouncements on the position of any particular charities, or to indicate whether the object of any appeal is, or is not, charitable according to law. That is a function which Parliament has entrusted to the Charity Commissioners and, within their field of interest, to the Inland Revenue. Their function is a semi-judicial one and their decisions, of course, may be tested in the courts.

Your Lordships will have seen that the Charity Commissioners themselves 1254 offered some guidance in their Report for 1962, when they pointed out that appeals to enable charities to play their part in the fields which my noble friend and the noble Earl opposite have been discussing should be confined to charitable purposes, and should state accurately what their purposes are. The money collected must then be devoted to those purposes, because those who administer the charities are in the position of trustees of the money which is given, and they must apply it in accordance with the intention of the giver.

I understand that the declared objects of the charities which are operating overseas are usually expressed in terms sufficiently wide to cover the whole range of projects which have hitherto been supported, but not quite always. It is sometimes difficult to decide whether a particular project on which money is to be spent is charitable or not, and to assist them in applying the law in these difficult cases the Charity Commissioners and the Inland Revenue have sought legal advice. They have now got it, and I understand that both the Charity Commissioners and the Inland Revenue believe that it will enable them to regard the great majority of the projects which have come to their notice so far as falling within the charitable field, and also within the trust purposes of the charities concerned.

It would, of course, be necessary for them, in consultation with the charity concerned, to go into the facts of any particular case, and to go into the trust instrument, if need be, in order that they may be satisfied. If any charity feels in any doubt about the charitable nature of the project it has undertaken, or wishes to undertake, it will be well advised to get in touch with the Commissioners, who will, I am sure, give all the help and advice they can.

The suggestion has been made by my noble friend that, in view of the encouragement which the Government have given to voluntary societies to devote their resources to work overseas on a more extensive scale than they hitherto have been doing, the Government should secure, if necessary by a change in the law, that no impediment should stand in the way of this laudable object. As your Lordships know, there is no statutory definition of "charity" 1255 The question of whether we should have a statutory definition was very fully debated during the course of the preparation and the passage through Parliament of the Charities Act, 1960, which modernised the whole of our charity law. The conclusion which was reached, with general acceptance, I think, was that there was no reason to change the existing law, and that there would be serious disadvantages in enacting a fresh statutory definition. That still remains the Government's view.

Of course, the law must always be able to protect donors who subscribe to charitable objects against any possible misapplication of the money which they have subscribed. But I am assured that any charity which is anxious, in good faith, to play its proper part in this great work of aid for those in need and distress overseas, need not feel that it will be obstructed; and that if there should be any need for an alteration in the objects for which a charity is established so as to remove doubt in borderline cases about its power to undertake particular projects within the field of charity law, then the Charity Commissioners will be prepared to give all the assistance they can.

My Lords, as there are so many of your Lordships who wish to take part in this debate, I will only add that I think the Government substantially agree with all that has been said, both by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and by the noble Earl opposite, except, perhaps, for the noble Earl's suggestion that we have been dragging our feet about getting an agreement with the Commonwealth concerning the law of extradition. We do not want there to be any unnecessary delay. I would put it to the noble Earl that it takes two to make an agreement, and there are a great many countries in the Commonwealth. Although, as he rightly said, we have in the last resort the right to legislate by ourselves, it would surely be preferable to get agreement if we can.

But in general I agree with the rest of what the noble Earl said. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this Motion, and although she may no longer be engaged actively in this work we shall never forget her really magnificent performance in World 1256 Refugee Year, when she led the voluntary organisations of this country in raising the unprecedented sum of £9 million, which was the largest amount raised in any of the 97 countries which took part.

I will leave the other matters which she and the noble Earl mentioned—U.N.R.W.A., the German victims and Africa—until winding up at the end. We all deplore the modern 20th century inhumanity which seems to make it impossible for peoples, who somehow managed to live in the same country through the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages, to do so now, and we all agree that we should combine in our endeavour to mitigate the suffering which is caused by this inhumanity. My noble friend particularly asked about continuance of the U.N.R.W.A. High Commissioner. We voted last year for the United Nations High Commissioner to go on for another five years. The U.N.R.W.A. Commissioner had only a period of two years, which expires in June. We will certainly vote for his continuance. Whether the period will again be two years I cannot say.

As a Government, we have contributed since the war no less than £200 million altogether to the work of helping refugees. We have given more than any other country except the United States; and that applies in particular to U.N.R.W.A. The amount which we have given is very large in relation to that which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned of £100,000 in 1962. He acknowledged that we had doubled that in 1963, after strong requests to do so in your Lordships' last debate, to which I had the honour of replying. We will certainly listen to all that is said in your Lordships' debate to-day. I think it is right that we should mention the fact that we have done more than any other country except the United States, but I should also, in particular, like to pay a tribute on behalf of the Government to all the voluntary organisations, the Churches and the other institutions, who are playing an indispensable part in this work of humanity and mercy.

§ THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK

My Lords, it was my privilege for the major part of the month of April to lead a party of Christian pilgrims to 1257 the Holy Land. The opportunity to study the problem of Palestinian Arab refugees at first-hand was too great to be missed; and, with the co-operation of the High Commissioner and many officials of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, I was enabled to meet refugees, to talk with them and to see something of the many projects which have been devised for their assistance and encouragement. It is to the problem as it exists in Palestine that I shall confine myself. Before I say anything else, I should like to express my deep gratitude to the High Commissioner and many members of his staff for their unfailing kindness and courtesy, and to pay my tribute to the splendid labours of this devoted band of men and women.

There are approximately one and a quarter million refugees in the Middle East. About half of this number, some 650,000, are in Jordan; about 325,000 are in the Gaza Strip; and the balance are divided between Syria and the Lebanon. The total figure on January 1, 1964, showed an increase of 38,491 over the previous year because the rate of immigration and resettlement is exceeded by the excess of births over deaths among the refugee population. Despite this, there was a slight decrease in the total number receiving rations, which had fallen from approximately 881,000 to 879,000. Current policy is now not to place further children on the ration rolls except to the degree that other persons are removed from the roll. If U.N.R.W.A. rations and care were withdrawn there is no doubt at all that there would be added to the great hardship, squalor and poor conditions in which most of the refugees are living, the burden of severe privation and, in many cases, actual starvation.

I talk of rations. What does this mean? U.N.R.W.A.'s budget permits of the expenditure of £10 14s. per registered refugee per year; that is to say, approximately seven pennies per person per day. Of this money, 40 per cent. is spent on relief, 15 per cent. on health, 40 per cent. on education and 5 per cent. on social welfare. What the rations mean is a monthly allocation of 22 lb. of flour, 1⅓ lb. of rice, 1⅓ lb. of various pulse foods, just over 1 lb. of sugar, ¾ lb. of fat or oil, and a piece of salt; no meat, 1258 no fish and no fruit. It is an allowance of 1,500 calories in the seven summer months, and 1,600 calories in the five winter months. There are extra rations for pregnant women, nursing mothers and for cases recommended by the doctors. Until now each refugee has also received one blanket in every three years. This has now become one blanket in every four years. There is also an allowance of 2½ pints of kerosene a month for heating. Who could live on such a diet? The fact is that each refugee family has to fight for itself what is called the "battle of the gap", the gap between what is provided for them and the basic necessities of life.

There are many who would reply at once that they should work and not live on relief. Work, yes: but how? They are peasants and they have no land. The lands in which they now live are lands of unemployment. More than one-third of the total population of Jordan, over one-quarter of the population of Gaza, and one-tenth of the population of Lebanon and a smaller percentage of the population of Syria are refugees. Nearly one in six of the total population of these four Middle Eastern countries are refugees. And they are not countries of modern and growing indusstry; they are countries endowed with infertile soils, immense water problems, peasant herding and farming, and very little industry.

If we take Jordan as an example—and it is to be noted that there are important differences in the situations of each of these countries—50 per cent. of the total labour force are engaged in agriculture, 30 per cent. in urban employment and 15 per cent. are unemployed. It is a remarkable thing that the refugees get as much work as they do. Among them, unskilled workers secure some employment at about 5s. a day. semi-skilled workers up to about 10s. a day. About 40 per cent. of the refugee labour force manage to get work for between 60 and 90 days of the year; a far smaller percentage are in permanent work. How the rest manage to live no one knows.

The fact is that U.N.R.W.A. has done well in relief, but not nearly so well in the provision of work or completely resettling. These are problems which have no solution on the terms which now 1259 exist. The provision of relief work has proved to be too costly. Money was not voted for long-term projects of water conservation, land use, irrigation and so on indicated in the Economic Survey Mission for the Middle East, of 1950. There has been some emigration, mainly to the United States, Canada, Latin America, Australia and New Zealand, but the total figure for the six years ending June, 1963, did not exceed 200,000 persons. Serious attempts are now being made for vocational training, and I myself visited the vocational training centre at Kalandin, where facilities are available for training 392 persons, and the Ramullah Training Centre for girls. I also visited centres for training health workers and pharmacists. The work that is going on in these centres is beyond all praise.

It is important that it should be noted that this is a field where, because of strict limitation of funds, only the surface is being skimmed. I was told by the head of the training school that in the whole of Jordan there is only one garage where a Jaguar car can be repaired. There is a grave shortage of skilled mechanics, as there is of engineers and technical personnel of all kinds at all levels. Certain Swedish firms have recently opened three-year courses for refugees as motor mechanics, part of the training being done in Sweden. This is something which provides great benefit, not simply to the individuals concerned but to the whole economy of these Arab countries. I have with me a letter from a boy who has gone overseas to learn. This is his letter to his instructor: From the country of calm and sound organisation I send you sound and true greetings. It is difficult to express in writing our gratitude for the sincere services you have rendered to us by teaching us to lead the proper way. You have been a brother, a friend, and a father to all of us. I am proud of extending the news of my success in Sweden. This has come through your hearty efforts and those of the instructional staff, particularly those of Mr. Salloum whose instruction has proved our attainment of the same standards as those of our colleagues from this country of advanced industry and "high standards"— that is Sweden. I shall always cherish the memories of my time spent in the Centre, which is a large 1260 house accommodating many fathers and brothers. Please convey on my behalf my best wishes and regards to all the brother instructors and colleagues. To every ambitious trainee I wish all the good luck to have the opportunity I had of seeing the Western world. Your obedient son, Ragheb Hasan El-Ayyeh. There is warning and encouragement in these lines of the young Ragheb Hasan El-Ayyeh. As young Arabs grow up in idleness and poverty they will be the more prone to war; as they grow up in the technical skills they so deeply desire with the aid of the West the more will they be disposed to peace. If British industry and British trade unions could see this as a great task for the furtherance of peace, the gain to the whole world would be immense. That is something which both industry and the trade unions must see.

The truth is that the majority of the refugees do not want to emigrate. Why should they? What they really want is to return whence they came. But the immediate reality we have all to face is that there can be no hope for them save in the total development of the whole bloc of Middle East countries, where there is space for all, but where there will be work for all only when there is economic development and expansion.

Time does not permit to go into the details of health centres, schools, youth centres, and other projects that I visited. None of the ones I saw was run by foreign experts, but by refugees themselves. They meet immense need bravely and skilfully and develop a self-sacrificing co-operation which is a joy to see. School children donate their coppers to help plant trees in their playgrounds, to build shelter from the scorching sun; poverty-striken villagers provide money to help build their own post office or their own little pleasure garden. With their own hands, I watched them, building their mosque. In one school in the region of Jericho there is a photograph on the wall of the staff and pupils of the Queen Elizabeth School for Girls in Barnet. The girls of this school have collected £400 to help this particular Arab school at Jericho, and have financed an expedition of the headmistress of that school to Britain, both to be the guest of the school in Barnet and to take educational 1261 courses here in Britain. This is the kind of imaginative gesture which schools and church groups throughout the country could well follow.

Tribute must also be paid to the British Red Cross, the International Red Cross and the many Christian and other organisations which have done so much to help in this tragic problem.

Faced with a problem so immense, of course there are difficulties and shortcomings. People die and their names are not removed from the ration rolls; material is not always used for the purpose for which it is donated. But problems like these are minimal and the authorities are aware of them and do their best to face them. The overwhelming problem which the conscience of mankind must face is not this; it is that 25,000 young people per year are growing up with nothing to do in any discernible future. You cannot prostitute the human spirit in this way without reaping a terrible reward.

Already this year the acceptance of further schemes of vocational training were made contingent on a 5 per cent. reduction in relief, a cut which I regard as appalling. Just think, 7d. per day on food and a 5 per cent. cut! These schemes need more money, not less, and it should be realised that the amount paid for these purposes by Her Majesty's Government and by other Governments is a modest contribution indeed towards the peace of the Middle East, in which we are so deeply and so intimately concerned.

But this, I venture to think, is a minor matter. Before long a decision is to be taken as to the whole future of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Will it continue after June 30, 1965, or not? I beg that Her Majesty's Government will stand resolutely within the counsels of the United Nations for its continuance. To interfere with it at this point of time would result in an enormous increase of human suffering and, because it would be the end of the moral authority of the United Nations in the Middle East, might make war almost certain.

I have already said that there is no real future for so many of these unhappy people unless there is a major development of Middle East economics. 1262 Here is the real challenge to us and to the Western world. Project after project has been tabled by United Nations Agencies and rejected for budgetary reasons. I regret this for many reasons, not least for the reason of self-preservation, for wise preventive action is often the best means of defence. Possibly some diminution of armaments expenditure, even the price of one nuclear bomb, would begin the road by which alone this problem could be solved, and would make a major contribution to the peace of the Middle East and so to our own security and defence. Here I think is a challenge to the Government, a challenge to all the United Nations and a challenge to all Christian people.

It would be wrong to finish without facing the bitter reality that, in the immediate future, this particular problem of human suffering is a political one. The refugees demand return to their previous homes; they demand compensation. But even if Israel were to offer compensation it would be refused because its acceptance would imply a settlement. One refugee school teacher said to me, "We are here for a long time; we are here till Arab unity is accomplished. Then we shall push Israel into the sea." While I was in Jerusalem the King of Jordan came there to say that the Arab League had agreed on this subject and Jordanian Palestine was to be made a base for the restoration of the whole of Palestine to Arab possession. For this, said the King, he would give his blood.

On the other side, the Government of Israel—I saw some of its representatives—says that it sees the human problem, but it cannot admit into its country 1¼ million potential fifth columnists. Behind Israel and its formation stands the whole historic iniquity of Christendom and the savage and relentless persecution of the Jews in Europe. Here is a problem before which I think we must be quite humble. But, perhaps because I speak as a Christian, I cannot abandon the hope that Jew and Arab, these two ancient Semitic peoples, will one day inhabit the land together, will live in peace in those ancient lands of the Bible which are wide enough and fair enough to hold them both. Till that day comes it is our solemn duty, with the 1263 rest of the United Nations, to hold the peace—and to give aid, to give aid, for now is the time.

§ LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, though I am an inferior clergyman I have upon a previous occasion taken it upon myself to congratulate a right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. This afternoon it falls to me to do so by custom, and I am glad to take this opportunity because I share with the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken the conviction that politics and religion are not things to be kept in separate compartments, but much the reverse. I am sure we all value greatly this first contribution that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Southwark has made to our debates. I hope we can look forward to seeing him on many future occasions on these Benches. I think I know him well enough to say that, whether we look forward to it or not, his contributions on those future occasions are quite certain to be searching, trenchant and almost certainly most controversial.

The noble Baroness who introduced this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Astor has already reviewed some of the changes, developments, setbacks and achievements which have occurred in this field since we considered this matter in the context of World Refugee Year in 1960. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said in a recent report, it was not until after 1955 that it was possible to offer much more than emergency relief to refugees. It is only since then really that the plight of refugees has begun to be effectively tackled in the wider context of international aid and development.

What the right reverend Prelate has just said illustrates the importance of tackling these problems more and more in that wider context. The wider terms of the Motion to-day, calling attention to the problem of refugees, disaster and international assistance", reflect this change of approach. In these last four years, while the original relief work has certainly had to be carried on and has continued to meet each fresh disaster and each fresh refugee problem as it has occurred, while the approach 1264 has switched in emphasis to deal in turn with such things as the earthquake in Skopje, the refugees in Rwanda, the flood disasted in Langarowe and the cyclone in Pakistan—while all this has continued, as it has to do, and as it will always have to do, there have been developing, further back as it were, new and more sophisticated plans, and more sophisticated structures to embody these plans, for tackling human need in greater depth and with longer-term measures and projects.

I have just made a short list of some events—birthdays, really, which illustrate this trend. For instance, we had in 1960 the birth in this country of our own Overseas Development Institute. We had the creation in 1961 of the Department of Technical Co-operation; also, in the same year, the change in emphasis when the O.E.C.C. became the O.E.C.D. In 1961, following upon World Refugee Year but with a quite different emphasis, we had the beginning of the International Freedom from Hunger Campaign, with its climax in this country in 1963 when we last discussed hunger. Finally, as the noble Baroness mentioned, we have the formation of this Disaster Committee. Those are only samples, among many others, which reflect a general awakening and a widening of public concern and interest throughout this country and the well-to-do nations of the world.

I see all this as the equivalent on an international scale of that which in this country first led to the pioneer social reforms of the 19th century. I see it as the equivalent to the climate of thought which was crystallised, for example, in the findings of the Royal Commission on Poor Law Administration in this country in 1906, and to the great public debate which followed it. I see these changes as the counterpart, on an international scale, of the trends which led in this country, to the flowering of our National Health Service, our National Insurance schemes and our welfare services after the war.

Your Lordships may feel that to talk like this is to be fanciful; that it is wishful thinking. On the other hand, let us look at some of the facts which I believe give weight to this conviction—a conviction which, I hold, is widely shared. There are, I believe, a number of signs that we are living at the dawning 1265 of an international social conscience that is determined to establish sturdy, flexible and effective means of ensuring that food, work and homes are more justly shared among mankind than they are at the present day: the determination to bridge the gulf between the two worlds in the way in which we bridged the gulf in this country between the two nations.

May I take four examples to illustrate the strength of this determination? We have heard recently a good deal about the Voluntary Service Overseas. It is only six years ago, in 1958, that a Member of this House first mooted this project in the pages of the Sunday Times. This year, only six years later, we have 300 school-leavers and 500 graduates giving a year of their life to serve overseas in grappling with some of the problems which we are debating to-day. The V.S.O. is only one sample of many others like it that I could have quoted. Take Oxfam, for instance, only just coming of age—21 years old, but now already a national institution: Oxfam, which harnesses the care and compassion of people in this country for human need overseas to the tune of £2¼ million per annum; which, with many other older and more established organisations copes with hunger, homelessness and disaster all over the world, both with immediate relief and with helping with longer-term solutions.

I notice particularly, among the faster growing features of Oxfam, the support that they get in regular, sustained, covenanted gifts. This is the support of people who are receiving from Oxfam Headquarters regular monthly bulletins of what their money is being used to do. It is the support of people who are combining their giving with an understanding of the problems they are dealing with.

Take the churches. The Churches' Inter-Church Aid and Refugee Service is far and away the largest department in the World Council of Churches, which the Churches operate in common. Christian Aid Week, which takes place at the end of this month, is by a long way the greatest single combined operation which the Churches of this country stage together. By this means, year by year, they lay the whole range of human need before the public at large, they demonstrate some of the means used to 1266 tackle it, and invite public support to help. This single annual enterprise by the Churches, engaging the active support of about half a million people in a single week, evokes a public response of around £700,000.

This readiness, shown by these two examples, this eagerness to grapple with human need outside our own shores, is by no means confined to this country. In fact, in some respects we lag behind others. In France, for instance, where, after their experience in Algeria and Indo-China in the past decade, one might expect a rather jaundiced attitude towards the less developed and less fortunate countries, we find aid running at the very high rate of something like £10 per head per annum, compared with an equivalent figure in this country of around £6. These are rather crude figures and if the Government have better or more accurate ones I shall be happy to be corrected, but I believe this to be roughly right.

In Holland the scale of international assistance in relation to their resources is even more impressive and striking. I believe it is more than double the 1 per cent. of gross national product advocated by the United Nations for the Development Decade. I read in the January Bulletin of the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees a graphic account of a recent campaign in Holland in support of a number of refugee projects in Turkey and in Greece. For this nearly one million dollars was raised, and in this case much of the success was due to the wholehearted and imaginative co-operation of the Dutch television, radio and press services, which sent correspondents to the problem areas and built up programmes and articles in support of the campaign at home.

I say all this just to make one point. I believe that we need to reckon now with a rapidly widening and deepening desire among people everywhere still more thoroughly to come to grips with all that has been set before us once again by this debate. It is up to all of us to move on with the greatest despatch to build up services on an international scale at least as generous, effective and comprehensive as the social services which we have come to have and to 1267 enjoy in this country. The need is certainly there, I believe the means are there, and the will to use them is there. As our children might say, it is up to us to "get with it": to pray, to think, to plan and to work towards the day when there is no one without food to eat, work and to do and a home to live in.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, at a time like this, when we are all conscious of the refugee problem which is brought home to us day after day in our newspapers, it is apt that we should have a debate of this kind. Those of us who have been to refugee camps feel impelled to make a contribution because we cannot forget the plight of those miserable people, helpless and homeless, whom we saw.

I find myself to-day a disappointed person. I listened first to the noble Baroness, whose efforts in Refugee Year quite rightly have been applauded by speaker after speaker. She did a wonderful job in raising more money—£9 million—than was raised in any other country. Having heard her opening speech, I sat back and thought, well things are better. Then I heard the right reverend Prelate make his maiden speech—I congratulate him on it and on his forthright manner; and, if I may dare say this in the presence of his superior, we rarely hear this forthright approach from that Bench, and it was rather refreshing to-day—and I found it most difficult to reconcile his speech with that made by the noble Baroness, although I recognise, of course, that the noble Baroness dealt particularly with the Girls' Training College, and not with the detailed way of life which was dealt with by the right reverend Prelate.

I cannot forget—and I have mentioned this on another occasion when we had a debate on refugees—the occasion when I went to that camp eight or nine years ago, and in the scorching heat and the dust watched a tragic band of children being treated for incipient trachoma. The doctor was there treating these children, everting their eyelids, and I went near, as I thought I might give a hand. But the doctor turned away from me, showing quite clearly that he regarded me very unfavourably, 1268 since he identified me with the plight of the refugees. I presented a target for his professional wrath. He projected all those pent up frustrations which symbolise the attitude of the refugees.

§ THE EARL OF SANDWICH

What camp was this?

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

It was the camp by the Dead Sea in Jericho, the one the right reverend Prelate spoke about; I think it is the biggest in the Middle East. I fully understood his pent up feelings. Those small children were being subjected to treatment for a disease which was entirely preventable if they had had a chance to live under better conditions. The doctor knew this and I knew it, and his indignation was too great for words. Then I saw the squalor; I saw those appalling huts in which there were seven, eight and nine people sleeping. I enquired about the calories they were taking, because that is our only test of nutrition, and was told that calorie consumption was very low. I enquired about the ration books and heard that they were not surrendered after the people died because bodies were hidden in the hills.

I had formed the opinion, on hearing the noble Baroness's speech, that after nine years everything had changed. I have a feeling that the noble Lady was perhaps not shown everything, because I think she would agree with me that those two speeches cannot be reconciled.

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lady, but I would point out that I did go to the same camp, which is called Aqabet Jaber. I went there originally three years ago. Then all the hutments the noble Lady had been speaking about had been replaced by little breeze-block or mud houses, and the conditions were very much better then. Now the houses are better still. There is much better sanitation, there are now shops and streets and people trading with each other, and so on. I know that the right reverend Prelate is quite right in saying that there are vast numbers of people who do not get employment, but what U.N.W.R.A. has done in this particular camp—and there are others too, but I went to this one in particular, because I had been there on an occasion before—is nothing short 1269 of a miracle. They have a Y.M.C.A. and a Y.W.C.A., they have schools and clinics, and the things which the noble Baroness saw when she was there ten years ago simply do not exist at all now.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

I am glad to hear that. I am very glad to hear that they have got modern sanitation, and that the ghastly slops that were collected at 4 a.m. every morning from the people in the huts have all disappeared.

§ BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

Yes.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

Then the extreme squalor which I saw then is no more. I am very pleased to hear this from the noble Lady, and I feel that I can continue my speech along those lines. It is no doubt very difficult for the right reverend Prelate to believe that nine years ago things were infinitely worse than anything he saw recently. It is the kind of thing that left such an impression on one's mind, that one came away so ashamed because one could not do anything. After that I went to visit camps in the Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, and there one learnt at first hand the full, miserable import of the word "refugee".

I have had an opportunity since last year of meeting Dr. Flack, the medical adviser who is in charge of U.N.R.W.A.'s medical services, who came through London, and Doctor Davis, the former Commissioner General of U.N.R.W.A., before he returned to the United States. It was some comfort to learn from them that 30,000 young refugees, reaching maturity each year with no prospect of a normal working life, had had their lot eased to some extent. I am rather anxious to know to what extent it has been eased, and whether the institutions that the noble Lady saw, particularly those for girls, are anything more than a prototype. We must have prototypes, but we should like to know just how far they have gone.

I understand that the expansion of general education and vocational and teacher training is now well established, and that U.N.R.W..A. is making a special effort to improve the quality of teaching in its schools by setting up an in-service teacher training institute. That is quite new. But I could not 1270 quite understand why on earth they did not use earlier the material they had in the camps to get instructors and teach potential teachers. Could we know how this is developing and whether there is an adequate supply of instructors and equipment? When I was there there were not even enough books. It seems a dream, and noble Lords may not believe it, but I saw children standing round at both ends of one book, so that some of them looked at it with the print upside down. That was their only opportunity of getting near a book. I should like to know whether they have everything that is necessary now, because surely all these wonderful people who are helping would make even bigger contributions if they knew that these children were denied books.

However, it seems to me that the major problem for refugee youth is prolonged unemployment, with the consequent risks of demoralisation. I am told that, with the fund from the World Refugee Year, the Agency expected by the end of 1963 that there would be ten teacher training centres and ten vocational training centres. The noble Lady mentioned ten teacher training centres, but I did not hear her mention ten vocational centres. Are they actually in being? We all know about politicians, and the fact that people talk about plans and planning for the year to come. We were promised these things, but are the ten institutes for teachers and the ten for vocational training in being? We were also told that they would be able to turn out 2,500 trained youths a year. Were they turned out last year, or is this pie in the sky?

Although I have read the material very thoroughly, I find it difficult to assess the real rate of progress. Could we know what percentage of girls and boys—I should like to have the sexes separated, because, with the noble Lady, I welcome this change in approach to women in the Middle East—receive vocational education compared, let us say, to the percentage five years ago? In so many of the documents we are given numbers; and numbers, of course, convey very little when one is thinking in relative terms.

We read these days of the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East in relation to the Western countries. Practically everybody who has spoken 1271 has said he has no intention of dealing with the political problem. My Lords, this is a political assembly. Are we really helping the situation if each and every one of us refuses to grasp this nettle, and simply says, "The time will come when everything will be all right and the peoples of the Middle East will be living together again"? In my opinion, these refugee camps constitute a canker which erodes the whole region. I realise that the instances I have put are concerned with symptoms of a condition, and not with the fundamental cure. I would remind the House that the impartial arbitrator who was called in many years ago was the United Nations Organisation, and it recommended treatment and a prescription.

The Commissioner General—and I think everybody recognises that Dr. Davis has done extraordinarily well in the Middle East—has thought it necessary recently to remind the world of what the United Nations Organisation recommended. He repeated again that we should find means of carrying out the provisions of paragraph 11 of General Assembly Resolution 195, which recommended repatriation or compensation of the Palestine refugees. It has been said that this is impossible. I believe that the time for this has come, when there are in Israel fine men and women of vision, of understanding, who would welcome support from this country, and who believe that more of these people should be returned. We are told (and the noble Lord who has just spoken has said this) that Israel has said, "These people would be subversive and they would be a fifth column." I would say that not all of them would be prepared to return. I do not agree that if they were offered compensation they would all refuse—not at all. These men and women are all like ourselves and they want a home. If they find that they have money to settle elsewhere they will do so.

I am firmly convinced that these things should be said, and that we are not aiding Israel or the Arabs by running away from the problem and simply saying that we have no intention of dealing with the political aspect of the refugee problem. The noble Lord said—and I agree with him—that finally Arabs and Jews will live together as 1272 they have in the past, very happily. But we are not helping. All we are doing is propping up this refugee service, which becomes more dangerous to the Middle East with every year that passes. These young men and women listen to the radio, they think for themselves, and they are aggressive by instinct as all young people are. They have been fed with the stories of the past, and the problem is not going to be solved by just having debates in which we say nice words about the people who are helping in the refugee camps. I believe that it is only when the United Nations directions are observed that this tragic problem will be resolved.

§ LORD INCHYRA

My Lords, I wish to refer, quite briefly, to one particular point which was mentioned by the noble Baroness in moving the Motion and which has been mentioned in, I think, one or two subsequent speeches, and that is the question of arranging for better and more effective co-operation and collaboration between the various voluntary societies in this country and elsewhere which are interested in the question of international emergency relief. This is, of course, a matter in which the British Red Cross Society, of whose Executive Committee I have the honour to be Chairman, is very much concerned, and that is the reason why I am venturing to intervene in the discussion this afternoon.

I should say straight away that when I speak of international emergency relief I am thinking of short-term emergency help to the populations or countries which have been stricken by some sudden disaster, whether it be a disaster brought about by natural causes, such as an earthquake or a flood, or whether it be some sudden emergency, such as the influx of refugees due primarily to political factors.

The aid to be given in such cases varies, of course, according to the circumstances. It may be medical assistance or supplies, or it may be help to prevent the spread of epidemics. Sometimes it is emergency supplies of food or clothes; at other times, what is wanted is tents and blankets and temporary shelter. In short, what I am speaking about is first-aid action in an 1273 emergency. I am not referring to the longer-term work, such as the rehabilitation and resettlement of refugees, or the planning of agricultural development and re-afforestation, or the rebuilding and reconstruction of villages or schools. In fact, my remarks will be directed entirely to the question of disasters, and not to the problem of refugees. This is not, I hasten to say, because of any lack of sympathy on my part or, even more so, on the part of the British Red Cross Society in the question of refugees, but simply because that matter has been far more eloquently dealt with this afternoon by others, and because it is perhaps just worth while saying something about disasters, for they have a habit of cropping up at very short notice.

The British Red Cross Society have, of course, always taken a very active interest and part in the problems of emergency relief in the case of overseas disasters. We were actively engaged in the relief work which followed up the earthquakes in Morocco, in Yugoslavia and in Iran during recent years, and at this very moment we are engaged, at the request of the Government of Uganda, in giving what help we can to provide medical assistance in connection with the influx of refugees from Rwanda. We have, as a matter of fact, two medical teams in that area at the moment, and we have recently received a request from the Uganda authorities for the despatch of two further teams to deal with a fresh influx of refugees, this time from the Southern Sudan.

But, as has been said this afternoon, there are several other voluntary societies in this country who have been, and are, very active in the same field, and there is an obvious risk of overlapping, and possibly some waste of effort. So far, therefore, as the British Red Cross Society are concerned, we should certainly be very much in favour of any steps which can be taken to ensure close and effective co-operation and collaboration between all the voluntary societies in this country. Such co-operation is obviously highly desirable from the point of view of the recipient country, if only to ensure that there is no duplication of effort and that the help given from abroad takes the form which is most suitable to the circumstances of the time. Equally, co-opera- 1274 tion is very desirable from the point of view of the donor in this country, who naturally wishes to be assured that the money which he has contributed is being spent in the most useful fashion and with the greatest measure of economy.

There are certain difficulties in the way of such co-operation, because there are differences between all these various voluntary societies—differences in organisation, differences in methods of raising their funds, differences, to some extent, in their objectives. For example, we in the British Red Cross Society, as I think I have already made clear, are primarily concerned with first-aid operations—the provision of medical assistance, and so forth—whereas some of the other voluntary societies feel able to extend their activities rather further into the longer-term field of rehabilitation or reconstruction.

Some of these voluntary societies are also able to concentrate nearly all their efforts and nearly all their funds on their activities abroad, whereas the work of the British Red Cross Society overseas is only a part, although a very important part, of its general activities. As your Lordships know, those activities consist very largely of a major effort in this country in the relief of suffering and distress and in the training of individuals in first-aid and nursing.

There are also other differences of approach and method. Inter-Church Aid, for example, in its activities abroad operates largely through the World Council of Churches, while the Red Cross has very close links with the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva and with the various national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies throughout the world. In this connection, I might say that in our activities the Red Cross have found that in nearly every case the most efficient way of sending aid abroad, or of ensuring that the aid which is sent abroad is put to proper use, is to work through the existing authorities or societies in the recipient country. In most cases that may be the local Red Cross or Red Crescent society; in others, it may be the local government authority. By and large, we have always found that the best thing to do is to make the maximum use of the local authorities and the local societies, if only because that is 1275 usually the most acceptable method to the Government of the foreign or overseas country concerned.

But the mere fact that there are these differences of approach between the different British societies, I think and my society feels, makes it all the more desirable to ensure that there is the closest measure of collaboration between them in this question of relief for overseas disasters. There is, as a matter of fact, already a very considerable measure of collaboration. There is a constant flow of information between the main societies about developments abroad. For example, such information is being exchanged about the present very unhappy situation in Uganda. Furthermore, some of the societies, notably Oxfam, The Save the Children Fund and War on Want, have during the past twelve months most generously channelled very considerable sums of money through the British Red Cross Society for expenditure on overseas relief.

As the noble Baroness has said, a further step has been taken quite recently by the constitution of a committee called the Disaster Emergencies Committee. This consists of representatives of the five societies, Oxfam, War on Want, Inter-Church Aid, The Save The Children Fund and the British Red Cross Society, with representatives of the Government Departments most immediately concerned. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to whose initiative the foundation of this Committee was to a large extent due, is also a member in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Conference of the British Organisations for Aid to Refugees. This Committee, I should explain, is in no way exclusive. It is entirely possible to include any other organisations or societies as and when they may be appropriate. It is quite informal; it does not possess any executive power; it can only advise the constituent societies. But it provides a very useful channel for the exchange of information.

It enables the representatives of the societies to reach an agreed estimate about the seriousness of any particular disaster; it makes it possible for them to consider and decide what form any assistance from this country might most 1276 usefully take. It can also make recommendations as to which of the various British societies are in the best position to supply that aid. Sometimes, of course, the aid takes the form of supplies or medical personnel; sometimes it takes the form of foodstuffs; but, more often than not, what is most wanted urgently is actual money to enable necessary supplies and foodstuffs to be bought on the spot. We hope to be able to carry this process of co-ordination further; but bearing in mind the various differences in organisation and approach of the different societies, and remembering and respecting their very natural desire to maintain their independence, I think this is a process which will have to proceed carefully and must not be pushed too fast.

That is all very well so far as this country is concerned. But there is an equal, perhaps even greater, need for co-operation on the international front. To some extent, of course, that co-operation already exists in the shape of the machinery of the League of Red Cross Societies at Geneva. This is, so to speak, the United Nations of the Red Cross movement. It has a highly efficient staff in Geneva and is in direct and constant touch with the various national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies all over the world. It is, therefore, in a position to collect and pass on to the various Red Cross societies immediate information about any disaster which may occur abroad. It can also advise as to the form in which any urgent assistance can best be given. It can express an opinion as to the extent to which the local authorities or local Red Cross societies may or may not be able to cope themselves with the emergency; and it can suggest that help should be given from such-and-such a country rather than from another. In fact, it acts as a co-ordinating agency and, to a large extent, prevents overlapping and waste of effort.

However, although this goes on all the time—and it goes on very efficiently —at present it covers only the Red Cross world; it does not cover the many voluntary organisations in other countries which are interested in this question of helping in international emergencies of this kind. Nor does it cover the specialised Agencies of the 1277 United Nations such as the High Commissioner for Refugees and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. It seems to us highly desirable that some steps should be taken to bring all these organisations, official and unofficial, or, at least, the more important of them, into some system of co-ordination and co-operation. But we must bear in mind the undesirability of setting up some new piece of machinery just for the sake of creating a new toy; and we must remember the importance of making the maximum use of the existing and well-tried machinery of the United Nations Agencies and the League of Red Cross Societies.

I understand that a meeting was very recently held in Geneva between the representatives of the United Nations and the League, with a view to discussing just this problem. I do not know what the outcome of this discussion was, or, indeed, whether the discussion has yet been finished. But so far as the British Red Cross Society is concerned, I would hope that some practical results may emerge, and would certainly wish these negotiations well. I hope that Her Majesty's Government would also view these developments with favour.

§ LORD AMULREE

My Lords, I do not want to follow many of the arguments that have been made about the problem of the refugees of the world, and particularly those in the Middle East. What I want to do is to follow up some of the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Inchyra, because I, too, have been connected with the work of the Red Cross Society for a long time, though in a more humble capacity than the noble Lord who has just spoken. It has been suggested in the past that there might be some new central body to deal with emergencies—say, something working under the United Nations—which would be an official body to deal with these problems. For the moment, I am not talking about the refugee problem but about the disasters, which is the second point mentioned in the Motion we have before us. If some official body were appointed to do this relief work, I do not think the work would be done so efficiently as it is now, because the Red Cross have had a long experience and 1278 are able to supply voluntary relief when an emergency occurs, thereby anticipating Government or more official action.

When a flood or earthquake disaster occurs, two points arise. The first is to supply immediate relief to cope with hunger, disease, lack of clothing, sanitary arrangements, et cetera. The second is to provide long-term rehabilitation and reconstruction, so that the normal standards of living can be restored. The former has to be done with the utmost speed possible. The second requires a comprehensive agreement, thought out calmly and quietly.

Why I think that the first can be better done by a voluntary society than by some Governmental or official agency is that it must be done quickly. The trouble about official agencies is that they not only tend to be expensive to administer, but also work slowly, being governed by regulations and rules which are not really flexible. Another reason why we should encourage the voluntary societies to do this sort of work is because, if we do not do that, it is quite likely that the well of voluntary kindness will dry up, and I think that that would be a catastrophe for mankind in general. I am associated closely with two charitable organisations and I am surprised to find what an enormous amount of money comes in to them, because people realise that they are bodies which are worthy.

The trouble about a Governmental organisation is that they cannot act promptly. When they can come into action, they work extremely efficiently, but the one thing they cannot do is to act promptly when a disaster occurs. Where Government can assist is in supplying such things as helicopters, landing craft, shipping space for supplies and stores and suchlike things. Another point, however, is that it is difficult to get long-term relief work done, if support is not forthcoming from the Government of the country where the disaster occurs.

One point about the Red Cross is that it has become a very satisfactory clearing house for information about the work of voluntary bodies, and I think that a good deal of the money and work of these other bodies has been 1279 channelled through the Red Cross. I should like to see something of the same sort being done by the League of Red Cross Societies in Geneva, so that all relief could be canalised via Geneva, because the Red Cross have enormous experience and a great amount of skill, and I am sure that they would do this work far better than any other body would.

I think it would be an advantage if a representative of the United Nations were attached to the Red Cross—I believe they have someone attached in Geneva and in New York—so that they can assist in getting the relief required organised in the proper way. It is important that they should be advisers and that the actual work should be done by the local people. That is one of the reasons why I think the Red Cross has its great reputation. People know that the Red Cross workers do the work on the job themselves and do not leave it to Government Departments and other official bodies. I shall be very interested to know what the Government's reply will be about the suggestion that something more might be done to encourage the Red Cross Society to form a world clearing house for relief.

§ BARONESS SWANBOROUGH

My Lords, there was a time when automatically people who professed a faith gave one-tenth of their incomes, in cash or kind, for the alleviation of distress of others, and it seems sad, because we are more affluent to-day, that people seem to have mislaid that idea completely. I feel that your Lordships do not want to discuss the collection of money, but would rather like to think for a moment about what our responsibilities as a nation really are. As several speakers have said, our name has stood high throughout history, not only for providing a place in this country for people but, much more important, for giving them an opportunity to merge into and become part of the body corporate of the country.

I have visited refugees in most parts of the world—in Germany, in the Middle East, in Hong Kong and in Korea. And, like other speakers, I feel that once one has seen the amount of tragedy there is, one can never stop recognising the 1280 amount of work one ought to do in order to be able to help. One has to think to-day not only of the registered refugees, but also of the out-of-camp refugees, unlisted and very often unknown. As the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, said, they are not only helpless but homeless—and, I would add, something even more serious, they are hopeless. To my mind, this is the worst thing of all.

We in Great Britain believe in trying to help other people and to achieve this we have always had recourse, in the first place, to appealing to the emotional reactions of the people of Great Britain. Their natural impulse is first to open their purses and cheque books. But we must face the fact that that is only the beginning and we must not rely on that for all the strength. In addition, we must think of how we can keep the interest of those who are helping, how we can keep the support of the individuals.

Here I think we must examine what we as responsible people feel is needed in such appeals, so that they are handled with safeguards for the public. Surely what we need to examine is the vast undertaking of settling and absorbing these tragic people, not only in Great Britain, but throughout the world. In our own country we do not want collections of non-British people living in our midst. It has always been our habit to show human kindness and understanding so that we can help them to attain the object of their coming here, which is ultimately British citizenship.

I do not see how we can attain this or anything else unless at every stage we safeguard our own people against the dangers that are to-day dominant in anything to do with cash. We teach our children to count the change they receive when they pay a bill. We, as housewives, constantly check that measure is good and that the weight given to us is correct. Those of us who are responsible for handling the emotional gifts of other people have a very real responsibility towards those donors for the commodities we are handling; and the responsibility is a moral as well as a financial one.

I am convinced that it is wrong to undertake a great piece of work which has as its final objective relief of suffering, or any other sort of relief, only 1281 to find subsequently, because of commercial advantage or professional advice, that the ultimate value of donors' contributions is very much lower than it should be due to extravagance in the collection. In this country we have as watchdogs the Charity Commissioners. It is important that people who, out of the kindness of their hearts, give money to help their fellow creatures should have some guarantee that it is spent as it is meant to be, and I am sure that every one of your Lordships would agree with me that societies which invite people to send them money should never lose sight of this point.

To-day, for the first time in your Lordships' House, I am speaking without declaring any interest whatsoever. I speak not as a member of a service or representing any organisation; I have the temerity to speak as a responsible human being with years of experience as my qualification. I contend that much harm is done by persons of eminence and repute giving their names in support of organisations, committees or undertakings of which they know nothing. I have often been told when I have queried friends and acquaintances on this subject, "Oh, but old So-and-so is on it". And when I have queried "old So-and-so", his answer has been exactly the same. The lending of names to appeals for charitable causes should be done only with the utmost care, except when the lender is prepared to take responsibility for such causes. Often what is intended to be an endorsement of the excellence of the purpose is taken to be a guarantee of the excellence of the administration, and this is not at all the same thing. I honestly believe that people should not give their names to organisations unless they are really conversant with the make-up of such organisations and really participate themselves in the activities of the undertakings.

I have often taken the names of people I know well from the headed paper or the list of patrons on appeals I have received and subsequently asked them who the chairman of the organisation is, what the aims of the particular society are and so on, and always I have received the same answer: "But I only gave them my name". The reason the name has been asked for, my Lords, in 1282 the first place is to use it to strengthen the appeal; to give substance to the backing; to convince others of the worth of the society. Surely, to give one's name is tantamount to backing the cause as well. I say this in support of all that has been said before. The Chairman of the British Red Cross Society has put forward a strong and important case, and all of us who have worked many years in these fields must feel that these points are safeguards which back the strong appeal of the noble Baroness who opened the debate, and who has put us all under an obligation to her for having aired a matter about which we all feel strongly.

I specialise in this type of work, my Lords, and I am deeply troubled by the very few who mislead in a field where the very many are real in their aims and dedicated in their objects. Such people do harm, both nationally and internationally, by misusing the emotional and the natural reaction of good and generous people in order to further unworthy aims. I feel it is our responsibility to safeguard our public. British law, we often complain, moves extremely slowly; but, equally, we believe it moves extremely justly. We must obviously, in the first place, be careful within our own country that money given for a cause is used for that cause in its entirety. We must be equally careful that grants made by trusts to other bodies, whether at home or abroad, are grants made for purposes within the terms laid down by the trust deed of the trust. We must, above all, be sure that grants of British funds for work in other countries are made to the appropriate internationally recognised body. I am sure we all believe that reports on how money collected in this country is spent, whether at home or overseas, should be true and real reports. I welcome the steps which I understand some societies are taking to secure a system of inspection on the spot; and I think we should all encourage the efforts of the Charity Commissioners to bring all societies up to the standard set in this regard.

I am known as a protagonist of simple action, and I am afraid I am also known as one who is always anxious to do away with red tape; but I am confident that safeguards must exist to protect the generous giver. The Charity Commissioners were right to draw attention 1283 to the new situation that has developed, and the need for trustees of the various charities to remember that they are accountable to the public for what they spend on their behalf and to be careful in this direction. I believe that the great majority of ordinary people who give to the various organisations for overseas aid do so because they think that their money will be used directly to ease someone's distress; and, thank goodness! this is what usually happens. If you are moved to compassion to help a starving child because your heart has been stirred by a specific appeal, you might be less generous if you thought your contribution was going to be diverted to some other endeavour. And even so, it is necessary that the other endeavour be well within the terms of the original appeal.

I feel that we want to look at this whole question with the broadest of outlooks. I am quite convinced that there is nothing we can do which would be too much. I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, in a firm stand in regard to asking, and indeed supplicating, for the range of the mandate to be long term. I should also like to ask, not only that we renew the mandate, but that we once more have the courage to give an example to the whole world by deciding on a bigger contribution than we have given before, to show others that what we do to-day they may perhaps copy to-morrow.

§ THE EARL OF LONGFORD

My Lords, I must begin by apologising to the House, and particularly to the noble Marchioness, for being absent so long this afternoon on duties that perhaps could be described as international and Parliamentary. For that reason, and because of my habitual fear of differing even in emphasis from the noble Marchioness, I hesitate to say one word which might seem to be not quite identical with what she has said.

I am bound to say that I am one of those who lend their name quite freely to good causes. Many people come to me and ask whether I would help with this good cause or that. If I am to be censured, I must accept it, but I am afraid that when I know the person extremely well, and know the extent of