§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyheath)I was privileged to have an Adjournment debate about UNESCO on 25 July last year in the previous Parliament. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to play this Adjournment debate in a slightly different way. If the House wishes to know my views in greater detail, I happily refer hon. Members to the appropriate columns of Hansard for 25 July 1991. I hope that this debate will be allowed to show the considerable support in all parts of the House for Britain's early return to that important international organisation.
The background is familiar to us all. In 1985, Britain decided to withdraw from UNESCO. I felt at the time, and have felt since, that that was a fundamental error. I am proud of the part that the United Kingdom played in helping to set up that organisation. I told the House last July that Britain had a
dominant influence in establishing UNESCO at a preparatory conference held at the Institute of Civil Engineers in London…Its secretariat was initially based in London. Its first director general was British and its constitution was deposited in London. Its accounts were audited by the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General."—[Official Report, 25 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 1299.]I have no doubt that Britain was treated favourably as a founder member of that organisation.We came out against the advice of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who was a member of that Select Committee, will catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We came out against the wishes of the officers of the Conservative foreign affairs committee and against the advice of those who took part in the debate with the exception of one hon. Member.
I hate the word "universality": it is crude and cumbersome. However, it puts over an important concept. United Nations organisations are not for picking and choosing to suit the needs of any particular country at any particular time. There is no menu from which one picks one's choice courses.
I am pleased to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the Chamber on a Friday. My first basic point for him is that it is very much in the United Kingdom's interests speedily to return to UNESCO because all hon. Members present support Britain having a seat on the United Nations Security Council. We have played our part in that Council in recent years with great proficiency. In particular, I recall the special UN Security Council meeting that we initiated to discuss UN affairs. However, many countries feel that the time has come for Britain to give up its seat on the Security Council. Japan, Germany and the European Community are mentioned instead. Those countries and their diplomats argue that Britain has started to opt out of UN organisations, in particular UNESCO.
If we are successfully to defend our position on the Security Council, it would be prudent to return to UNESCO without delay. If we consult the education, scientific and cultural establishment in this country, it is clear that there is massive support for our rejoining 653 UNESCO. Indeed, it is difficult to find a major organisation in that category that believes that we are wise to be playing it as we are.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I have used one argument in the context of the European Community: it is no use standing on the sidelines and shouting. We may not like everything that goes on in the Community, but we must get off the sidelines and on to the pitch and play our part. It is bizarre that in the context of UNESCO, we argue that we can better influence events by shouting to our supporters who have remained on the pitch. When we came out of UNESCO, the Commonwealth high commissioners made representations to the British Government. They said that they were being let down, as did our European Community partners. We have allowed the French, who are no slouches in this regard, to gain influence in UNESCO and to help spread the influence of the French language. Many Commonwealth countries, particularly in Africa, wonder what we are doing.
That is all I wish to say in introducing the debate. I believe that there is ovewhelming support in the House for recognising that a mistake has been made and for returning to UNESCO. That would benefit the United Kingdom and that important international organisation.
§ Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)I support what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said and congratulated him on the succinct way in which he moved the debate and his courageous and principled persistence over the years in raising this topic.
Perhaps we both have a nonconformist background, but I, too, have three points to make. The first is simply that the Opposition accepted the view in 1984 and 1985 that much was wrong with UNESCO, but, in our judgment, it was wholly wrong to leave. The proper course would have been to remain inside the organisation and fight our corner with other like-minded countries.
We agreed with several of the Government's criticisms of UNESCO's policy and organisation. They criticised the degree of bureaucracy for its own sake, the amount of croneyism associated with the name of the then director-general, the policies in vogue at the time, the new international order in terms of the press, and the emphasis on group rather than human rights. Yes, we shared those criticisms, but we thought then, and are even more convinced now, that it was a false judgment of the Government to withdraw.
Effectively there was a collision of two cultures. The House may recall that the time of our withdrawal in 1985 was one of the high watermarks of Thatcherism in foreign affairs. We had already suffered many damaging blows to Britain's overseas image—the overseas students, the British Council, the reductions in the World Service and or increasing isolation on South Africa. The macho image and macho isolationism which the then Government—or perhaps I should say No. 10—sought to portray was exemplified by the decision to withdraw from UNESCO. The other side of the cultural collision was the strident and negative third-worldism of the time. So the decision to withdraw was the collision of those two cultures.
My second propostion is that one of those cultures has changed. There has been a sea change in the third world. In the past few years a new realism has crept over countries 654 that were perhaps the most strident and which the Government criticised at the time of our withdrawal from UNESCO. A new director-general who is favoured by the Government is now in place at UNESCO. Every one of the criticisms that the Government made in 1985 to justify Britain's withdrawal from UNESCO has been largely met. I might add that we are the only European Community country to have withdrawn from the organisation.
Massive progress has been made, yet the Government are impaled on the wrong decision made in 1985 and are unwilling to withdraw. One could make points about the overhang of Thatcherism and question whether there is such a thing as Majorism, but, given the new position of the Government on foreign affairs in general, I am confident that if a United Nations organisation indulged today in some of the activities which the Government and the Opposition found unwelcome, the Government would not withdraw from it.
Therefore, why do not the Government look at the realities of today, recognise the substantial progress that has been made and return into the world and this valuable United Nations organisation? Is it simply a budgetary matter—the £9 million or so that the United Kingdom would have to contribute to the budget of UNESCO?
My third and final point follows that made so well by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath. The continued delay in our rejoining UNESCO is contrary to fundamental British foreign policy interests. It isolates us, gives the wrong signal about our international policy at a key time and harms our international understanding.
There is no need to remind the House of the fundamental changes which have taken place in the past few years. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, the United Nations was set up in 1945 and in its organisation—for example, permanent membership of the Security Council—it reflected the power realities at the time. In this new world, with the changed power position of the United Kingdom, it is no wonder that many countries question our permanent membership of the Security Council, when we have so much to contribute.
Labour would not have withdrawn from UNESCO and, had we won the general election, a Labour Government would have rejoined it immediately. We are confident that our international standing is weakened by continued Government failure to recognise that new reality.
One American best-seller was entitled, "How to make friends and influence people." By their failure to adjust to the realities and to rejoin UNESCO, the Government are influencing people and many countries in the United Nations, but they are not making friends. That is bad for this country and the Opposition strongly urge the Government speedily to rejoin that worthy international organisation.
§ Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) in this Adjournment debate. I think that I have taken part in every debate in the House on this issue.
One gets the feeling that we have been pushing the rock up the hill since 1985. I hope that we have got to the top of the hill and that we shall see the rock rolling down the other side. It will enable my right hon. and learned Friend 655 the Minister of State, in whom I have the greatest confidence, to make an objective assessment of our real interests.
UNESCO was started when we had a sense of international vision in Britain. We looked wide and understood what was necessary within the United Nations. That is why we are proud that, as my hon. Friend suggested, we were the founding fathers of UNESCO. I also acknowledge that the United Nations got into considerable difficulties, as we all recollect, because of the false division in the world between east and west.
We are back in a time of international vision. For the first time the UN is seen as the instrument of international policy—whether in conflict resolution or in connection with the Rio conference on the environment and development. Whatever field we choose, there is great hope and understanding that the UN will be an important player as we approach the end of this decade and the beginning of the next millennium.
Those of us who care about poverty and the situation in many third world countries recognise that UNESCO has a unique role to play—for example, in its ability to sustain and support education by modern technology and in the wider development of the UN and in bringing together the United Nations family.
It is one of my great worries that, although many people see a future for the UN and are pleased to give it responsibilities in what was Yugoslavia, in Angola and in Cambodia—I have been very much involved in those countries and am delighted that the UN is playing a role —they are, as yet, unwilling to give it the resources. We must look hard at giving the UN responsibilities and at how to ensure that resources are available to carry out the work.
On resources, I understand the problem with the budget of the Foreign Office and that the £9 million or £10 million that we need to find has already been distributed in other ways. Perhaps I am the only Member who has said in the House that the Foreign Office budget should be increased rather than decreased. It is derisory to spend £247 billion on public expenditure but to have less than £4 billion to spend on the foreign service—on overseas development, the British Council and all those instruments of internationalism for which this country is famous.
I recognise that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has to deal with that sum of money, I would be one of the first, as would everyone else speaking in the debate, to suggest that the money should come from an increase in the Foreign Office budget rather than from the reallocation of scarce resources.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend realises that the time has now come to rejoin UNESCO. The Americans have crawled all over the budget and found that UNESCO has reformed and changed its operations dramatically. Only last night it formed a committee of 12 wise men to oversee the control of its finances and to ensure financial probity. That is what we have pressed for. This debate should be the last one in which we ask the Government carefully to reconsider the matter. The time has come to rejoin UNESCO, certainly within this parliamentary term.
§ Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey)When Britain left UNESCO, my colleagues opposed the decision, both outside and inside the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for putting the issue back on the agenda so early in this Parliament. I am not here simply in a personal capacity. My right hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the leader and foreign affairs spokesman of my party, have asked me to say that we are keen that the Government should respond positively to the calls from both sides of the House.
I have two simple points to make. First, it is timely to rejoin UNESCO now, in the light of the changed perception and agenda of the United Nations and our closer integration in Europe. It would be illogical to move closer to our partners in Europe and at the same time to remain separate from one of the United Nations bridge-building mechanisms. Secondly, although we opposed the decision to leave UNESCO, we understood why the Government withdrew—the internal management and personalities. Those matters have been directly and comprehensively addressed and will continue to be.
Therefore, I hope that the Government will recognise that the reasons for their attitude at the time no longer apply. We should rejoin UNESCO with enthusiasm before the end of this calendar year.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)This is my first opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I hope that your ties become the traditional style of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
This has been a model Adjournment debate. The issue is an important one and is self-contained. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) introduced it in a speech of admirable lucidity and conciseness, and several hon. Members have participated with speeches showing the same characteristics.
My hon. Friend pointed out that he raised the matter last July. Consequently, many of the arguments material to the debate have already been rehearsed in detail, so it is not necessary for me to go through them today. That being so, I should like to speak in general terms.
As the House will know, we left UNESCO in 1986 for the reasons that were rather well described by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I know that he thinks that we made a mistake in leaving, but he fairly described the kind of considerations that caused us to make that decision. Essentially, the organisation was being increasingly politicised and the spending and policy priorities were unsustainable. As all who spoke in the debate emphasised, substantial improvements and changes have been made to UNESCO and its organisation. I shall touch briefly on a few.
First, we welcome the decision that states, not individuals, should sit on the executive board. That will give a much greater sense of direction and coherence to the management and running of the organisation's affairs. Secondly, I welcome the decision to appoint an expert group on financial and administrative matters which will 657 certainly assist the executive board in the conduct of UNESCO. We look forward to the time when the group starts to operate.
I also welcome the fact that there has been a full review of the office of public information, carried out, I am glad to say, by a British firm of consultants. It was funded by the ODA and it has produced far-reaching proposals which include reducing the number of staff employed in the office and developing a proper strategy. I am glad, too, that the director-general has expressed his willingness to implement the reforms advocated.
Another encouraging development is the fact that UNESCO has agreed to co-operate with the survey of the United States General Accounting Office, acting on behalf of the Congress. We have not seen the report yet; I believe that it will be produced in June and I look forward to studying its contents. All these are encouraging developments.
The organisation is unfortunately on course for a large cash deficit by the end of this year which looks as if it will amount to about $80 million. That must be dealt with, no doubt by reducing staff numbers and prioritising spending. How UNESCO responds to this problem will clearly be relevant to the decision that we must take.
I have mentioned the reforms. Now I want to tell hon. Members where we stand on the matter. I accept that there have been genuine improvements in the way in which UNESCO runs its affairs. We therefore approach this question with a genuinely open mind, recognising that many of the problems that we identified in 1986 have been dealt with. But that fact alone is not conclusive.
I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester): the money comes out of the aid budget. We reckon that the assessment on and paid by the United Kingdom will be of the order of £9 million, so we must ask ourselves how the payment of £9 million to UNESCO ranks against the other spending commitments, multilateral and bilateral, undertaken through the aid budget. My hon. Friend was good enough to say that he would support any attempt to secure extra funds to cover the amount—jolly nice of him—but, influential as his support is, I could not guarantee that he or I would be successful in the attempt.
We are in the business of trying to determine where £9 million is best spent. Incidentally, the indirect costs of membership should also be considered. For instance, I have to decide how best to deploy personnel in the Foreign Office. We are busily trying to open up embassies in eastern Europe, and quite right too. Are the resource implications of UNESCO such as to balance favourably against expanding personnel and establishments elsewhere?
This is not code for saying that we will not join; I am saying that we have a genuine assessment of priorities to make. There has been great improvement and many of the difficulties we identified have been addressed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, we must make an assessment of our points of interest and see where the benefits and priorities lie. We must measure spending through UNESCO as against spending under other parts of our aid budget. We shall reach a conclusion in an open-minded way, taking into account the powerful arguments that have been advanced today, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath.