§ 6. Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been called to the report of the auditors on the accounts of U.N.E.S.C.O. contained in the French version of the report of the Committee of Administration set up by U.N.E.S.C.O.; and as the auditors reported that the accounts were kept in a disorderly manner and that there had been a misappropriation of 1,173,339 franc?, why no mention of these facts is contained in the English version of the same report.
§ 3. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smilesasked the Minister of Education why the information that more than 1,000,000 francs was lost by the cashier in gambling was omitted from the British official edition of the recent U.N.E.S.C.O. report.
§ 9. Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Education why the British report of the Second General Conference of U.N.E.S.C.O. held in November and 537 December, 1947, omitted certain paragraphs which are contained in the French version, including the strictures of Messrs. Price Waterhouse, the auditors.
§ Mr. TomlinsonAs this matter has aroused a good deal of interest I hope the House will bear with me while I give a detailed explanation. Various reports on the Mexico City Conference have been published. U.N.E.S.C.O. has itself published both in French and in English the complete transactions of the conference. These documents fill three volumes and can be obtained in this country through His Majesty's Stationery Office. Readers of English are not, therefore, denied access to any of these documents.
The Report on the Conference published by His Majesty's Stationery Office was not intended to cover fully the official U.N.E.S.C.O. report. Something shorter and cheaper was needed. It makes a general reference to the financial irregularities of 1946 and to the remedial action taken, but to have printed the whole of the auditors' reports would have increased the size and price of the pamphlet to an extent which did not appear to be justified for the following reason:
The inadequate accounting and financial irregularities referred to took place between 15th September, 1946, and the end of that year, while the Preparatory Commission, which preceded the establishment of U.N.E.S.C.O. itself, was sitting in Paris. The Auditors' Supplementary Report of 18th September, 1947, indicated that U.N.E.S.C.O.'s methods of accounting had been greatly improved since the beginning of that year.
I might add that the U.S. Government report is similar to the one published by His Majesty's Stationery Office and also omits the auditors' reports.
§ Commander MaitlandDoes not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, even though this happened some time ago, it is always most important that where there appear to be defalcations special attention should be drawn to them, otherwise the sort of suspicion which has arisen in this case will inevitably occur; and will he take pains in future, when dealing with matters of this kind, to see that this sort of thing is brought out?
§ Mr. TomlinsonI am hoping that there will be no future occasion when it will be necessary to draw attention to the defalcations of a member of another State. I would point out that reference is made to it in the abridged report, although I admit that there is no full statement, but this is to be found in the official U.N.E.S.C.O. report which is available to anyone who desires it.
§ Mr. KeelingIs the Minister aware that there is public anxiety—voiced in a leading article in last Tuesday's "Times"—about the wisdom of some of U.N.E.S.C.O.'s activities, and does he agree that it is therefore important that no impression should be given that unpleasant facts are being suppressed, especially as the British taxpayer is contributing over £250,000 a year?
§ Mr. TomlinsonI am in full accord with the leading article in "The Times" but it had nothing to do with this question.
§ Mr. Kenneth LindsayI hesitate to raise this matter because it hardly affects the present administration, but would the Minister answer this question? He said that the United States report and the United Kingdom report were the same. Would he not agree that, when we go to a conference and agree on a particular report, and then find that in the British report the numbering and the annexes are so changed that there is no reference to particular financial matters—and I have looked at both reports—it is a matter for very grave consideration? I do not want to press the matter now because it did not really arise during the Minister's tenure of office.
§ Mr. TomlinsonIt is because the same point has been raised in another publication that I went very carefully into it. It is true that in the American report which can be compared with our abridged report there is only one slight reference to the auditors' report but this is available to anyone in this country.
§ Mr. GallacherWill the Minister take note of where such corrupt practices take place and that they are one form of activity for which the Communists cannot be attacked?