UNESCO (Hansard, 7 July 1993)

§ Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)
This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak on the subject of UNESCO. I pay tribute to the many colleagues who have put the case for the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO since we left it in 1985. I first pay tribute to the most eminent of those colleagues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has so often said that the United Kingdom should never have left UNESCO and that the earlier we return the better.
Secondly, I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who, since we left UNESCO, has consistently called for us to rejoin. Indeed, in the debate when we left UNESCO my hon. Friend said: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement will be received with deep sadness and will be greeted by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with a certain degree of bitterness? We shall leave our friends in UNESCO to argue our case and continue the battle that my right hon. Friend began so well and pursued with such vigilance … I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that it cannot be in Britain's interests to reduce our influence in such an important international organisation."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 451.] I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), a member of the United Nations Association working committee on UNESCO, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), the chairman of the United Nations parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who is also here this evening and is a member of the UNA working committee, and many other hon. Members whose names are on the early-day motion on the order paper today. That early-day motion urging the Government to rejoin UNESCO was signed by 247 hon. Members.
I pay warm tribute to the staff of the United Nations office in London and in particular Mr. Rashid Kareh, who has been so supportive throughout these years. I also pay tribute to the other organisations which have kept in contact with UNESCO in professional ways. They range from the Royal Society of Chemistry, of which so many of us are honorary members, to organisations such as Exeter university, which receives fellows and chairs from United Nations organisations such as UNESCO.
The purpose and history of UNESCO is well known to the House. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we left in 1985. Our knowledge of UNESCO has been kept alive and warm since then by the creation soon after that, at the suggestion of several Members of Parliament and of another place and of professional and academic people, of a committee under the umbrella of the United Nations Organisation. Roughly half its membership of 40 comes from the House of Commons or the other place. That is why we have had debates in both Houses. The more recent ones were on 22 May and 4 December 1992 in this place and on 14 March in the other place. I suggest that the work of that group has kept knowledge of UNESCO so alive in this place.
It is worth recalling that the United Kingdom was the founder member of UNESCO. It came into being as a result of the initiative taken by Rab Butler, known to so 444 many of us when we were children or young people entering into politics, who was then President of the Board of Education of the United Kingdom, and Sir Malcolm Roberts, the then chairman of the British Council. In 1942 they invited Ministers of Education of the allied countries to form a conference of allied Ministers of Education. That conference was UNESCO's starting point. It was a manifestation of a climate of hope for the future. It was an initiative of the United Kingdom.
The principal purpose of UNESCO described in the constitution was and remains to contribute to peace and security be promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed … by the Charter of the United Nations. Indeed, the first paragraph of the preamble to the constitution reads: since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed". Today, from that early beginning in the dark days of the second world war in London, 173 member states belong to UNESCO. Who are the absentees? The most marked of the absentees have to be the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
I greatly respect the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister in this and other matters. I suggest —I believe that he will agree with me on this—that UNESCO is a changed body. When we left in 1985, it was overstaffed, slack in thinking, and top-heavy. Although we were sorry to leave, the Minister for Overseas Development at the time made at least a partially convincing case. I have, however, always agreed with the French that the person who is absent is the person who is always wrong, and that we would have done better to have stayed in and reformed UNESCO even more swiftly.
Let me give one example of the transformed UNESCO under its present management. On 25 June this year-12 days ago—President Yeltsin met UNESCO's director-general in Moscow on the occasion of the signing of a memorandum of co-operation. That is a most remarkable document. I have in my hand a press report of it, sent to me by Mr. Tom Forstenzer, from the Paris office of UNESCO. It tells us that, on 25 June, Fredrico Mayor, the director-general of UNESCO, and the President of the Russian Federation met in Moscow to sign a memorandum to strengthen co-operation between Russia and UNESCO in the Organisation's fields of competence. In particular, it concentrated— on support for, and development of, democratic change in the country"— a most important and critical focus—
preservation of the cultural and natural heritage, transmission of information and training of personnel (in management, copyright and other sectors). It spans the sectors of culture, education, science and communication.
The press report says: Some key activities in the field of culture are in the reconstruction and modernisation of the Bolshoi Theatre and the Russian State Library, both in Moscow, and the Hermitage in St Petersburg. Those are places well known to many of us. On top of that, special attention is given to the EUROLINGUAUNI project, which aims at improving knowledge of foreign languages and increasing student exchanges in the human sciences. UNESCO will also assist in the preparation of new legislation regarding education. 445 Is not something of that magnitude a project of such value that the United Kingdom and the United States of America should not only warmly welcome it, but, in an honourable world, wish to be involved in it? Do not we honestly wish to participate in something of such value to the world? We pride ourselves on being in the forefront of assisting Russia and other former Soviet Union countries to inherit the democratic traditions that we have matured, and to learn them from us. Why then are we content to be on the outside while those important and exciting activities are going on?
That was not the only large activity that took place that week. UNESCO was a meeting place for all those around the world who are expert in different ways of protecting and restoring ancient stone and brick. One need only look across the road to see how wonderfully Westminster abbey has been enhanced by the tremendous programme that we have undertaken. Was not it France that started that initiative, many years ago, under the banner of UNESCO, in cleaning up the wonderful monuments of Paris? We have been johnny-come-latelys to that work. Should we not have been part of that conference as well?
This week, UNESCO is home to a meeting of specialists in the teaching of science at primary and secondary level —a matter of major concern not just in the United Kingdom but in all other countries. There is also a high-level meeting of experts on solar energy, the solar summit. Each of those important recent events shows us that UNESCO is acting in sectors of vital interest to the United Kingdom—preserving monuments, exploring more effective teaching methods that link the latest research to early learning experience, advancing renewable energy techniques and building bridges to newly fledged democracies. What more exciting programme could any of us wish to be involved in?
I am indebted to Dr. Colin Power, the director of education of UNESCO, for giving me a breakdown, in percentage tenns as well as in actuals, of the current expenditure of UNESCO. The budget is remarkably small for the large undertakings in which UNESCO is involved. I remind the House that the biennial figures are 38 per cent. on education; 22.5 per cent. on science; 17 per cent. on culture; 11.2 per cent. on communication; 9.3 per cent. on social sciences and 2 per cent. which is sectoral. That breakdown is of particular importance to us all.
Under the education heading, I have learnt of the excellence of today's UNESCO. I visited the head office in Paris recently where I met for the second time Mr. Frederico Mayor, the director-general. I also met Dr. Colin Power, who, as I have already said, is assistant director-general for education. I met the director of the combating illiteracy project, Mr. Peter Higginson, and also Birgitte Moller, who is the chief of section for contracts with other donors. I met another wonderful donor organiser, Ms Basma Irsheid, who is chief of the unit for good will ambassadors and the special adviser for Arab funding sources. I also met the senior special adviser and deputy director-general, Mr. Sharma, and Mr. Tom Forstenzer, the executive officer.
I found UNESCO in Paris today to be a centre of excellence, with a rigour of thinking and an economy of style carried out by top-flight people with whom, I believe, the United Kingdom should wish to be associated. I sought—and I believe will achieve—a contract partnership between UNESCO and the AMAR appeal to provide education in refugee camps.
446 You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have an interest in helping the plight of children, particularly in refugee camps. I approached UNESCO to assist a particular group of Iraqi children in south-west Iran who have been in camps there for more than two years. I knew that only UNESCO would be able to assist me because, within the United Nations family, UNESCO holds the mandate on education and recognises education as a basic human right and its essential place in any scheme that proposes to offer humanitarian assistance to the young.
UNESCO seeks to assist in the provision of sustainable education resources for children and young people with a view to protecting their individual futures in a developing world. I believe, and I have put this proposal to Paris, that UNESCO has skills and resources that can be channelled effectively to the Iraqi Shia community children in south-west Iran in partnership with the AMAR appeal.
I sought this debate tonight not just because of the general excellence of UNESCO. Many colleagues have made such points over the past seven years with greater knowledge than I have. I sought this debate because, in recent weeks, I have had this hands-on, basic experience of the excellence of UNESCO. After all, UNESCO could have said to me, "There are just a few thousand children down there. They're out of sight. There are only 6,500 or 10,000, so what are you talking about? What has that got to do with us? What have camps and emergencies to do with education?"
Instead, Mr. Frederico Mayor said, "Of course we shall help. We will do all we can with you to meet the childrens' and teachers' needs." That concern for the education of young people caused me to request this debate. I believe that only UNESCO could open the doors. For two years earlier I had sought to bring education to those children. It was not until I went to UNESCO that I found an understanding and professionalism and ready response that has already begun to show fruition in partnership with the AMAR appeal and our host country, Iran, for those children.
I have also referred to the high percentage of UNESCO's budget that is devoted to science. As a member of the Medical Research Council from this place, I have a particular interest in that. I referred earlier to the Royal Society of Chemistry. I have been in contact with the society's parliamentary affairs officer, Mr. Stephen Benn, who is known to many of us. He told me of the Royal Society's wish that we should rejoin UNESCO. Indeed, he tells me that the council has now agreed to submit a formal request to the Government in support of United Kingdom re-entry and that the council is taking a close interest in our debate.
He reminds me that UNESCO carries out the work that the society promotes—the important work that there is still to do in science and environmental work, such as the need in 1992–95 to provide advanced training for 3,000 mathematicians, physicists, chemists and biologists, to award research grants and to establish 15 to 20 pilot projects for updating teaching materials and science curricula.
The recent White Paper on science surely impressed upon us all the importance of the development of science for the United Kingdom. That is one good reason why we should rejoin UNESCO.
Perhaps it was because of the excellence of UNESCO's commitment to science that, on 20 May this year, 37 Nobel laureates who are residents of the United States of 447 America and outside it personally presented a declaration with other eminences to President Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore. I have that declaration with me. The signatures are astounding in their importance and value to the world of science and in the wider world of us all.
A concurrent resolution was introduced into the House of Representatives and the United States Senate at the same time. That was followed in June by two full days of hearings. One was spent on hearings from nongovernmental organisations and one was spent on government organisations. That large piece of work stemmed from the efforts made by the Paris office to show the United States of America that UNESCO is indeed transformed. Perhaps because of that, the concurrent resolution asks the President to develop a strategy to bring the United States back into active and full membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation. Congressman Howard Berman said: The US was right to leave UNESCO in 1984. Politicisation of the communications programmes"— perhaps that was the nub of the issue here— and discrimination against … a member state". It is a long statement, but he goes on to say: We should rejoin now because UNESCO has solved the problems which led to our withdrawal. From protecting the global environment to building independent news organisations to educating the world's youth, UNESCO can significantly further our national interests in international intellectual and cultural exchanges, free communication across borders, the promotion of democracy, sustainable development, and international economic competitiveness. The US was one of the founding members of UNESCO, because, in the wake of world war Two, we profoundly understood the importance of education, culture, science and communication to the maintenance of international peace and stability. I commend the concurrent resolution to the House. It states: UNESCO has elected new leadership, instituted tightened financial controls and strategic planning, cut staff and budget, renewed professionalism, restored recognition of intellectual property, returned the organisation to the principle of an unfettered, independent international press, therefore addressing and redressing the criticisms which formed the justification for the United States' withdrawal. Those critical points are surely even more vital to those of us who watched the fiasco of the human rights congress in Vienna, when the Minister himself fell foul of its organisers' incompetence and was unable to deliver his speech on behalf of this nation. Surely UNESCO, which is now an excellent organisation, as witnessed by those statements in the concurrent resolution, is a body which can promote human rights ideals in the way in which it is tasked to do.
Now is the time to show our good faith in the ideals and practicalities of UNESCO and rejoin the organisation that we promised to rejoin when adequate reform was accomplished. All of us now agree that that is the case. I ask the Minister if we can honestly remain credible if we delay.
I refer to the point made by the previous Minister of Overseas Development when he was questioned whether we were merely running where the Americans led and simply copying the withdrawal of the United States from UNESCO. I quote his reply to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn): 448 The right hon. Gentleman has a mania of finding conspiracy wherever he looks. We have been under no pressure from the United States Government to make this decision. They have pursued their policy quite independently of our own. I say firmly to the right hon. Gentleman that, although we have decided that this international organisation is not doing its job effectively, that in no sense means that, we are opposed to international organisations or the United Nations."—[Official Report, 5 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 450.] I think that I am correct in saying that, this afternoon, my right hon. and learned Friend told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs—I wait to be corrected if the wording is not accurate—that, if the United States or Singapore were to rejoin UNESCO, the United Kingdom situation would be reviewed and a political decision would have to be made. In essence, that means that, if the United Kingdom was alone on the outside, the Government would have to act.
It is time to act now before we lose credibility. I have put those two quotations together to highlight our need to think and act independently on such important matters. I know the constraints that are on our Government and their budget and those that are pressed on the Foreign Office and its work internationally—which I support so much—through the Overseas Development Administration, the British Council and the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Indeed, I know about the new funding pressures that are put on us by our membership of the European Community.
The Minister could ask people such as myself and others to assist him to raise the money. Does he agree in principle that UNESCO is an organisation that we would be right to rejoin if we could find the cash?

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on securing this Adjournment debate on a subject of some importance. She knows that we last had an Adjournment debate on this subject on 22 May 1992. Indeed, we discussed it more recently because earlier today I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on precisely this issue. My hon. Friend, who has obviously had a report of what I said in Committee, will find that what I say now bears a striking resemblance to what I said then—in short, the Government are capable of considerable consistency when they must.
I shall reduce to a few points the position that we have adopted with regard to UNESCO. The United Kingdom and Singapore left UNESCO at the end of 1985, one year after the Americans left, and for broadly the same reasons. We have remained in close contact with the Americans and have shared assessments of the organisation ever since. My hon. Friend asked what I said in Committee about rejoining UNESCO. I broadly said that that creates a new situation. If the Americans and the Government of Singapore were to decide to return to UNESCO, we would have to review our position but without any commitment.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)
The Minister knows that I am no longer the Opposition spokesman dealing with UNESCO, but I was for nine years. I know that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is now our spokesman, when I say that we agree with the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss 449 Nicholson) that Britain should never have come out of UNESCO and should now be in it. The Minister is implying that, if the Americans return, we will return on their coat tails.
Does the Minister agree that it might be appropriate for Britain, as a founding country of UNESCO, to take a lead and not to follow on this important issue?

§ Mr. Hogg
We dealt with that point before the Select Committee. The answer is that at present we are in decent company in remaining out. If the Governments of Singapore and the United States rejoin, we shall be isolated. That would create a new situation, and we would then want to reconsider our position but without any commitment.
When we look back to our decision in 1985, we are satisfied that our decision to leave was sound. Our reason for withdrawal, shared by the Americans, was prompted by concern about some six problem areas: programme concentration; duplication of the activities of other United Nations agencies; special programme issues—my hon. Friend referred to those—particularly the New World Information and Communications Order; decentralisation; administration and efficiency; and budget.
Since then, the position has changed because satisfactory progress has been achieved in all those areas, with the exception of decentralisation. UNESCO still lacks a coherent policy on decentralisation and it still needs to present a focused approach, drawing together the strands of its broad mandate, from science to education and culture to promoting freedom of the press. We, like many member states, wish to see more effort devoted to achieving further concentration.
However, if we were now members of UNESCO, we would probably not leave. I accept, too, that in an ideal world it is desirable to belong to all the United Nations organisations. I accept the desirability of universal membership.
450 A major constraint is the cost of resuming our UNESCO membership. Were we to rejoin today, our assessed contribution for the rest of 1993 would be some £4.5 million. In 1994 and 1995, those costs would be almost £11 million a year, falling to £8 million if the United States were to rejoin. We would also need to weigh up the cost of additional staff both at our UNESCO observer mission and in London to deal with extra UNESCO duties, and with the re-established United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO. Those costs would amount to about an extra £250,000 a year.
The money for resuming our UNESCO membership would almost certainly have to come from the ODA bilateral programmes. There are no surplus funds and no probability of new money. Therefore, a decision on if and when to rejoin depends on spending priorities.
Since 1986, most of the money saved from what could have been our assessed contribution to UNESCO—£6.4 million in 1986—has remained in the ODA's budget, and the funds have been used for activities that are well targeted and over which the ODA can exercise tight control.
In 1986, the former UNESCO money was reallocated to activities falling within the areas of UNESCO's competence. The ODA continues to allocate substantial sums for priority activities in those areas. There is a danger that, were we to rejoin UNESCO, we would have to on such allocations. In short, Ministers would have to make some difficult decisions on shifting money for existing worthy projects from the bilateral programme.
In broadly summing up the position, I accept that UNESCO has carried out substantial reforms. There remain areas in which—